5 ms·

The cited source indicates otherwise, that the license comes with restrictions. Ben didn't read the article. https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-and-openai-

The cited source indicates otherwise, that the license comes with restrictions. Ben didn't read the article. https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-and-openai-forge-awkward-partnership-as-techs-new-power-couple-3092de51 https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-and-openai-forge-awkw...

jacquesm 3y ago
Who will fight them?
- himaraya 3y ago
  OpenAI's lawyers? Big tech passes everything through legal anyways.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Except for firing execs it seems. Everybody who remains in charge at OpenAI has so many conflicts of interest now that their best bet is to lay very low. Unless they want to be in lawsuits for the next couple of generations. And so far laying low is exactly what they are doing. Has there been any substantial statement from the new CEO yet?
    - himaraya 3y ago
      OpenAI isn't Big Tech? Adam could reasonably argue his interest in Poe doesn't conflict with the nonprofit charter. Sam & Greg saw fit to leave him in place. Uncommunicative boards remain less unusual than you think, unfortunately.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        > Adam could reasonably argue his interest in Poe doesn't conflict with the nonprofit charter. Good luck with that line of argument, I wouldn't want my reputation and my fortune to hinge on that. > Sam & Greg saw fit to leave him in place. Bad mistake on their part given the guy's history. > Nothing from Emmett yet. I wonder if he'll resign...
        himaraya 3y ago
        I really don't think investors have the case you think they do. They may ultimately pin the board on some technicality but the case looks far from straightforward. Anyways, it looks like Sam has finally started talking with the board again. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-21/altman-openai-board-open-talks-to-negotiate-his-possible-return https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-21/altman-op...
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Everybody involved has more to gain by patching things up and the 'rogue' board members vacating their seats, the sooner they realize that the better. As for whether or not investors have a case: Microsoft may not, but the smaller investors probably do because they can fairly easily prove that their interests were harmed by the ill advised actions of the board.
        himaraya 3y ago
        The nonprofit board holds no fiduciary duty to for-profit investors, big or small. In theory, I suppose you could sue the board over undermining the charter but that seems tricky itself, this case aside.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        You keep saying that. But only a judge can confirm that that means that they are able to cause harm without consequences. I don't buy that. The charter is not the only thing that governs what a board can and can not do, just like you can't contract out of the law in any other way a non-profit board members does not have automatic and complete immunity from the fall-out of their actions. That would be an interesting device: a full blown corporate armor that exceeds even the degree of insulation an indemnification would offer. It would be the boardroom equivalent of a magic cloak.
        himaraya 3y ago
- alexdoesstuff 3y ago
  the people owning the remaining 51% of OpenAI?
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    You should probably check out who those people are. Hint: they're not the board members that decided to yank the rug out from under the company.
    - alexdoesstuff 3y ago
      They don't have to be board members to fight. The 51% shareholders are clearly wronged here in my view if MSFT just hires all of OpenAI staff AND takes the existing models and trade secrets.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Again, you should check who those 51% are. If you don't know who they are and what their relationship with Microsoft and the various board members is then you probably won't understand why your comments on this subject don't track. Hint: the 51% are more likely to go after the board than that they are going to go after Microsoft because the board action is what precipitated this whole mess. Microsoft is just - conveniently - picking up the pieces and periodically drops hints about what they'll do if anybody gets in their way of doing that.

jacquesm 3y ago

Who will fight them?

himaraya 3y ago
OpenAI's lawyers? Big tech passes everything through legal anyways.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Except for firing execs it seems. Everybody who remains in charge at OpenAI has so many conflicts of interest now that their best bet is to lay very low. Unless they want to be in lawsuits for the next couple of generations. And so far laying low is exactly what they are doing. Has there been any substantial statement from the new CEO yet?
  - himaraya 3y ago
    OpenAI isn't Big Tech? Adam could reasonably argue his interest in Poe doesn't conflict with the nonprofit charter. Sam & Greg saw fit to leave him in place. Uncommunicative boards remain less unusual than you think, unfortunately.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      > Adam could reasonably argue his interest in Poe doesn't conflict with the nonprofit charter. Good luck with that line of argument, I wouldn't want my reputation and my fortune to hinge on that. > Sam & Greg saw fit to leave him in place. Bad mistake on their part given the guy's history. > Nothing from Emmett yet. I wonder if he'll resign...
      - himaraya 3y ago
        I really don't think investors have the case you think they do. They may ultimately pin the board on some technicality but the case looks far from straightforward. Anyways, it looks like Sam has finally started talking with the board again. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-21/altman-openai-board-open-talks-to-negotiate-his-possible-return https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-21/altman-op...
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Everybody involved has more to gain by patching things up and the 'rogue' board members vacating their seats, the sooner they realize that the better. As for whether or not investors have a case: Microsoft may not, but the smaller investors probably do because they can fairly easily prove that their interests were harmed by the ill advised actions of the board.
        himaraya 3y ago
        The nonprofit board holds no fiduciary duty to for-profit investors, big or small. In theory, I suppose you could sue the board over undermining the charter but that seems tricky itself, this case aside.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        You keep saying that. But only a judge can confirm that that means that they are able to cause harm without consequences. I don't buy that. The charter is not the only thing that governs what a board can and can not do, just like you can't contract out of the law in any other way a non-profit board members does not have automatic and complete immunity from the fall-out of their actions. That would be an interesting device: a full blown corporate armor that exceeds even the degree of insulation an indemnification would offer. It would be the boardroom equivalent of a magic cloak.
        himaraya 3y ago
alexdoesstuff 3y ago
the people owning the remaining 51% of OpenAI?
- jacquesm 3y ago
  You should probably check out who those people are. Hint: they're not the board members that decided to yank the rug out from under the company.
  - alexdoesstuff 3y ago
    They don't have to be board members to fight. The 51% shareholders are clearly wronged here in my view if MSFT just hires all of OpenAI staff AND takes the existing models and trade secrets.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Again, you should check who those 51% are. If you don't know who they are and what their relationship with Microsoft and the various board members is then you probably won't understand why your comments on this subject don't track. Hint: the 51% are more likely to go after the board than that they are going to go after Microsoft because the board action is what precipitated this whole mess. Microsoft is just - conveniently - picking up the pieces and periodically drops hints about what they'll do if anybody gets in their way of doing that.