3 ms·

Fourth time I've posted this conspiracy theory in the last few minutes at HN. This'll be the last: This reads like a disingenuous strategy to get rid of the ot

Fourth time I've posted this conspiracy theory in the last few minutes at HN. This'll be the last: This reads like a disingenuous strategy to get rid of the other three members (one half) of the board. A real coup, not a fake one. I know nothing about any of these people, but it seems possible Sutskever convinced the board to make a decision that he knew would have an outcome that would end in them being fiduciarily obliged to resign so that he, Altman, and Brockman could come back as the entirety of the board. And if the hiring by MS is involved, then MS would then control the board of the non-profit.

anon84873628 3y ago
Or Sutskever is just clueless, didn't think through his previous actions, and now super regrets it...
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  So why does he stay (at least as an employee) but the rest of the board goes?
  - knd775 3y ago
    Not that I agree with the comment you replied to, but Ilya is absolutely essential to the future of OpenAI. That's why they'd want him to stay.
    - laurels-marts 3y ago
      Is there any proof that anyone wants him to stay?
leadingthenet 3y ago
I think people here will likely be somewhat open to that conspiracy theory, as my assumption is they'd rather see the world through a lens where capable but malicious individuals are able to enact such complex plans, than believe even smart people can make a series of progressively dumb decisions without correctly predicting the downstream consequences. The far simpler explanation: Microsoft positioned itself very ably prior to this debacle, and its experienced and ruthless executive team was able to successfully capitalise on a major mistake as a result. This way you do not need to purport the existence of a seer-like ability within Satya to correctly predict third+ order effects, just a very high level of experience + competence for one party, and the opposite for the other. Truth is, until a reasonable sounding explanation of what set these events into motion is made public, it'll be impossible to put any narrative to rest.
chimeracoder 3y ago
> an outcome that would end in them being fiduciarily obliged to resign They are the board of a nonprofit. They do not have a fiduciary duty to shareholders or employees. They may choose to resign due to political or social pressure, but they haven't done anything that breaches legal obligations as officers of the corporation or its controlling board.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  If staying on the board means that the non-profit is no longer as viable an enterprise as it was then they have a fiduciary duty to resign to support the best interests of the non-profit charter. Fiduciary is not about money.
  - ahtihn 3y ago
    Has anyone ever successfully sued a board member for not resigning on the grounds that it's a breach of fiduciary duty?
  - lolinder 3y ago
    According to the letter from OpenAI employees, the board has indicated that destroying the organization might be within the bounds of their duty to the charter: > You also informed the leadership team that allowing the company to be destroyed “would be consistent with the mission.”
gsuuon 3y ago
Not sure why exactly but I've kept wondering if this was a Snape Dumbledore situation

anon84873628 3y ago

Or Sutskever is just clueless, didn't think through his previous actions, and now super regrets it...

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
So why does he stay (at least as an employee) but the rest of the board goes?
- knd775 3y ago
  Not that I agree with the comment you replied to, but Ilya is absolutely essential to the future of OpenAI. That's why they'd want him to stay.
  - laurels-marts 3y ago
    Is there any proof that anyone wants him to stay?

leadingthenet 3y ago

I think people here will likely be somewhat open to that conspiracy theory, as my assumption is they'd rather see the world through a lens where capable but malicious individuals are able to enact such complex plans, than believe even smart people can make a series of progressively dumb decisions without correctly predicting the downstream consequences. The far simpler explanation: Microsoft positioned itself very ably prior to this debacle, and its experienced and ruthless executive team was able to successfully capitalise on a major mistake as a result. This way you do not need to purport the existence of a seer-like ability within Satya to correctly predict third+ order effects, just a very high level of experience + competence for one party, and the opposite for the other. Truth is, until a reasonable sounding explanation of what set these events into motion is made public, it'll be impossible to put any narrative to rest.

chimeracoder 3y ago

> an outcome that would end in them being fiduciarily obliged to resign They are the board of a nonprofit. They do not have a fiduciary duty to shareholders or employees. They may choose to resign due to political or social pressure, but they haven't done anything that breaches legal obligations as officers of the corporation or its controlling board.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
If staying on the board means that the non-profit is no longer as viable an enterprise as it was then they have a fiduciary duty to resign to support the best interests of the non-profit charter. Fiduciary is not about money.
- ahtihn 3y ago
  Has anyone ever successfully sued a board member for not resigning on the grounds that it's a breach of fiduciary duty?
- lolinder 3y ago
  According to the letter from OpenAI employees, the board has indicated that destroying the organization might be within the bounds of their duty to the charter: > You also informed the leadership team that allowing the company to be destroyed “would be consistent with the mission.”

gsuuon 3y ago

Not sure why exactly but I've kept wondering if this was a Snape Dumbledore situation