3 ms·
First, I meant people would've already jumped ship to Microsoft en masse without bothering with the OpenAI board fiasco if Microsoft truly held all the cards. I
by himaraya 3y ago
First, I meant people would've already jumped ship to Microsoft en masse without bothering with the OpenAI board fiasco if Microsoft truly held all the cards. I suspect they do not.
Second, I meant the OpenAI that signed the initial agreement with Microsoft years ago already had ample resources and funding. In those negotiations, OpenAI would have had little incentive to hand over all their IP regardless of the offer on hand.
- scarface_74 3y agoWe are witnessing right now that most of OpenAIs employees are ready to jump ship now that Altman is leaving. The facts on the ground changed. Also, it’s standard in many contracts that you can’t actively poach a partner’s employees. That doesn’t mean that if the employees actively reach out to you, you can’t hire them. I saw that at AWS. If they had so much funding why were they willing to give up 49% of the company to Microsoft? Does that read like a company that could be picky?
- himaraya 3y agoThe fact that Sam and the employees have waged this PR campaign suggests the board still sits on something of value. I guess we'll see who flinches first. OpenAI gave up 49% equity because they thought Microsoft gave a fair valuation and terms, among other possible reasons. OpenAI wanted to scale up their LLM research so they signed the agreement. I don't think OpenAI negotiated from a position of weakness.