4 ms·
This certainly feels like the most likely true reason to me. Altman fundraising for this new investment, and taking money from people the board does not approve
by mcv 3y ago
This certainly feels like the most likely true reason to me. Altman fundraising for this new investment, and taking money from people the board does not approve of, and Altman possible promised not to do business with.
Of course it's all speculation, but this sounds a lot more plausible for such a sudden and dramatic decision than any of the other explanations I've heard.
- benterix 3y agoMoreover, if this is true, he could reasonably well continue knowing that he has more power than the board. I could almost imagine the board saying, "You can't do that" and him replying "Watch me!" because he understood he is more powerful than them. And he proved he was right, and the board can either step down and lose completely or try to continue and destroy whatever is left of OpenAI.
- sigmoid10 3y agoThe thing is, they could have just come out with that fact and everyone in the alignment camp and people who memed the whole super-commercialized "Open" AI thing would be on their side. But the fact that they haven't means that either there was no greater-good mission related reason for ousting Sam or the board is just completely incompetent at communication. Either way, they need to go and make room for people who can actually deal with this stuff. OpenAI is doomed with their current board.
- mcv 3y agoThat is a very good point. Why wouldn't they come out and say it if the reason is Altman's dealings with Saudi Arabia? Why make up weak fake reasons? On the other hand, if it's really just about a power struggle, why not use Altman's dealings with Saudi Arabia as the fake reason? Why come up with some weak HR excuses?
- jacquesm 3y agoBecause anything they say that isn't in line with the rules governing how boards work may well open them up to - even more - liability. So they're essentially hoping that nobody will sue them but if they are sued that their own words can't be used as evidence against them. That's why lawyers usually tell you to shut up, because even if the court of public opinion needs to be pacified somehow the price of that may well be that you end up losing in that other court, and that's the one that matters.
- tiahura 3y agoIf it was all about liability, The press release wouldn’t have said anything about honesty. The press release could’ve just said the parting was due to a disagreement about the path forward for openAI. As a lawyer, I wonder to what extent lawyers were actually consulted and involved with the firing.
- jacquesm 3y agoIf they have not consulted with a lawyer prior to the firing then that would be highly unusual for a situation like this.
- trinsic2 3y agoMaybe the board is being prevented or compelled not to disclose that information? Given the limited information about the why, This feels like a reverse psychology situation to obfuscate the public's perception to further some premeditated plan.
- bsenftner 3y agoI'm betting they are just colossally bad communicators, the majority of the board, and in the heat of an emotional exchange things were said that should not have been said, and being the poor communicators we know in tech oh so well, shit hit the fan. It's worth being said, Sam's a pretty good communicator, and could have knowingly let them walk into their own statements and shit exploded.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Palpatineli 3y agoTelling people that AGI is acheivable with current LLM with minor tricks may be very dangerous in itself.
- FartyMcFarter 3y ago> the board can either step down and lose completely or try to continue and destroy whatever is left of OpenAI. From the board's perspective, destroying OpenAI might be the best possible outcome right now. If OpenAI can no longer fulfill its mission of doing AI work for the public good, it's better to stop pretending and let it all crumble.
- GuyFromNorway 3y agoI am not sure if it would be commendable or out-right stupid though for the remaining board members to be that altruistic, and actually let the whole thing crash and burn. Who in their right mind would let these people near any sort of decision-making role if they let this golden goose just crash to the ground, even if would "benefit the greater good" - cannot see that this is in the self-interest of anyone
- piuantiderp 3y agoSpoken like a true modern. What could be more important than money? Makes you wonder if aristocracy was really that bad when this is the best we get with democracy!111
- mcv 3y agoExcept that letting it all crumble leaves all the crumbs in Microsoft's hands. Although there may not be any way to prevent that anyway at it point.
- wilde 3y agoIf this is true why not say it though? They didn’t even have lawyers telling them to be quiet until Monday.
- jeffwask 3y agoThis was my guess the other day. The issue is somewhere in the intersection of "for the good of all humanity" and profit.