8 ms·

These words are gonna get ate one way or another. There is no outcome where the current board wins. Emmet is already threatening the board with resignation unl

These words are gonna get ate one way or another. There is no outcome where the current board wins. Emmet is already threatening the board with resignation unless they provide evidence of wrongdoing [1]. Which they don't have, because they would have revealed it already. They are empty shirts. [1] https://x.com/emilychangtv/status/1727020834005700914?s=20 https://x.com/emilychangtv/status/1727020834005700914?s=20

righthand 3y ago
Why? The board announced the removal of a CEO which they have the power to do. It upset a bunch of employees who liked the CEO. The board is in search of a new CEO. OpenAI’s valuation isn’t because Sam Altman is worth $90B it’s the tech. The tech is fine. Investors have no reason to worry about their investment in the tech. The people under pressure are Sam Altman trying to reclaim his job he was fired from and Satya Nadella who is running a campaign to eat OpenAI. None of that is related to the functioning tech of OpenAI, all of it is related to the drama of what happened. Drama is not equal to money. I was sad when my favorite pet died too, but then eventually you get a new pet that’s just as good as a Worldcoin guy, maybe better.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  According to Stratechery, Microsoft does not just have the rights to use the source code and model weights for GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, but a clause saying that Microsoft could not use the models as foundations for their own projects was recently removed. > Investors have no reason to worry about their investment in the tech. If Stratechery is correct, this means that if Microsoft successfully poaches Sam Altman and friends, and vacuums OpenAI clean of talent, they will even be able to use the actual GPT-4 to build a Microsoft GPT-5. That should make investors sweat. If you lose the people and (possibly) the technology, what's left?
  - himaraya 3y ago
    Source? Ben didn't read his cited source in his article yesterday.
    - gjsman-1000 3y ago
      Currently, the claim is unproven. However, if I were an investor, I'd be pounding on the doors demanding for clarification.
      - himaraya 3y ago
        I meant, can you link the claim that the clause in question got removed?
        gjsman-1000 3y ago
        https://stratechery.com/2023/openais-misalignment-and-microsofts-gain/ https://stratechery.com/2023/openais-misalignment-and-micros... "Microsoft’s original agreement with OpenAI also barred Microsoft from pursuing AGI based on OpenAI tech on its own; my understanding is that this clause was removed in the most recent agreement." (It's hidden under a citation bubble you need to click after the third paragraph.)
        himaraya 3y ago
        I see. Pursuing AGI sounds distinct from commercializing future versions of ChatGPT based on OpenAI IP. I imagine the exact legal wording in the contract makes all the difference. The WSJ article from June he cited indicates the license still comes with restrictions. 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
        I'd have my lawyers do the pounding.
  - righthand 3y ago
    Yeah okay Microsoft poaches them but they still have to restart building everything from scratch which wouldn’t benefit Microsoft. Microsoft doesn’t want to poach talent, they can always do that with or without this incident. Microsoft wants the whole bundle. Hence the media campaign Satya is doing.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      No, the point is they would not have to start building everything from scratch.
      - righthand 3y ago
        That only happens if Microsoft acquires all of OpenAI, not if they just poach the employees. Poaching means starting again even if they have the road map in their head.
        ebalit 3y ago
        They already have access to GPT4 per their agreement with OpenAI.
- exitb 3y ago
  Companies aren’t valued for their current state, but future prospects.
  - righthand 3y ago
    Is Sam Altman a future prospect of LLMs? It’s not like he holds the secret to GPT v5 or anything.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      I'd be surprised if Sam was by himself, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the people who signed that letter do hold the secret to the next big thing (GPT-5 probably isn't the next big thing; if it exists already it's likely just a nice iterative improvement and not a fundamental change).
    - squeaky-clean 3y ago
      Seeing the amount of employees that are willing to follow him, yes I'd say he is. If you have a mass exodus of employees, sure you can hire people to maintain ChatGPT 4, but they won't complete a GPT 5 or 6. That valuation is definitely based on the assumption that they will continue advancing AI and that they will consistently stay ahead of competitors for some time. They just axed both of those assumptions. ChatGPT 4 as the endgame is not worth 90 billion dollars.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  "It upset a bunch of employees. The tech is fine". Uhmm, it upset 98% (not figuratively, but mathematically) of all 700 employees who signed a petition to quit unless he's reinstated and for the board to resign. As for the tech... who... exactly do you think created, maintains and is developing future enhancement for the tech? Is it doing it by itself? Sorry, we're not there yet.
  - righthand 3y ago
    > Uhmm, it upset 98% (not figuratively, but mathematically) of all 700 employees who signed a petition to quit unless he's reinstated and for the board to resign. And they have yet to leave as far as I know. Seems like no one is in an actual hurry to quit.
    - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
      Sam Altman is currently talking to the board. You want them to spin up drama by quitting in the middle of the talks? You're trying too hard to copy paste your desired narrative on this and it fits so, so, so poorly.
      - righthand 3y ago
        If Sam comes back it’ll be under heavy changes. The board isn’t going to leave. You don’t get ousted and then get to call the shots, no matter how many employees you think you have on your side. Furthermore the fact that Sam is in talks is further proof that he won’t be coming back on his terms. As the board why would you fold to the employees just because they like a guy? I’m not copy pasting anything, cute diss though.
        3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
        Sorry to be blunt, but literally everything you said so far was nonsense, so I'll understand your opinion as a sign that Sam Altman will come back and the board will resign.
- thinkindie 3y ago
  Technology is not made out of thin air but it is made - and maintained - by people; and when 500 out of 700 people threaten to quit on the spot and leave for competitors, or for Microsoft, investors might not be happy at all.
  - spaceman_2020 3y ago
    It's not 500/700. It's like 728/770 last I checked. Almost everyone.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - jejeyyy77 3y ago
    Yes but as mentioned most of these people can be replaced.
- flappyeagle 3y ago
  > The board announced the removal of a CEO which they have the power to do. They have the power to remove him momentarily, do they have the power to keep him out? we're still finding out. > OpenAI’s valuation isn’t because Sam Altman is worth $90B it’s the tech. OpenAI's valuation is nominally because of the tech. It's fundamentally because of the people. 90% of the staff is threatening to follow Sam to $MS so that's the whole ball game. They went to OpenAI to make themselves rich. The board fired the guy that was trying to do that for them. > I was sad when my favorite pet died too, but then eventually you get a new pet that’s just as good as a Worldcoin guy, maybe better. Doesn't matter if you or I am sad. It only matters if the talent at OpenAI is sad. The board made them sad. Sam and Sataya make them happy.
  - righthand 3y ago
    If it’s fundamentally about the people, can you name some of these 90% that OpenAI couldn’t live without? Other than Ilya? From where I’m sitting the 90% are replaceable in a flooded market of available software engineers. If Satya and Sam make them happy then go work for Microsoft. The board is calling their bluff right now.
    - flappyeagle 3y ago
      Do you think they hired those people because they're useless? > The board is calling their bluff right now The board is not doing much of anything. They picked a CEO then she went to team sam. Then they picked another CEO and now he's threatening them with resignation. Not to mention the 3 other people they tried to bring into the role who refused.
      - righthand 3y ago
        No I think they hired them because they can do the job the agreed to pay them. I don’t think these people are irreplaceable, that would be silly. That’s what Sam Altman wants you to think.
        3y ago
- ben_w 3y ago
  > OpenAI’s valuation isn’t because Sam Altman is worth $90B it’s the tech. The tech is fine. Investors have no reason to worry about their investment in the tech. The following story is only about an hour old, but the investors are reportedly considering legal action against the board: https://www.reuters.com/technology/openai-investors-considering-suing-board-after-ceos-abrupt-firing-sources-2023-11-20/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/openai-investors-consider...
- code_runner 3y ago
  They claimed to remove the CEO with cause. They have not provided cause. Even the twitch dude is asking for the cause. The board just firing off half-cocked and then going silent is probably a larger source the issues for employees than altman the person/leader. There is effectively nobody in the driver seat and the board can't be trusted to do anything in the best interests of the company.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    They did provide cause, you just don't accept what they said as valid or detailed enough.
    - smegger001 3y ago
      No they made an extremely vague aligation with no concrete examples or evidence provided.
- golergka 3y ago
  > The tech is fine. Have you ever maintained the software where the original team left? I have. And though it was much less complex and cutting edge than what OpenAI is doing, it was a massive pain with loss of knowledge and time.
  - righthand 3y ago
    Yes I have. I’ve even added features to legacy software and have made that a part of my mentoring to engineers to not reinvent the wheel and be good at reading and understanding code. I don’t think it’s a loss because the company has chosen to invest in that software. I include that time as onboarding for a project.
    - ebalit 3y ago
      OpenAI IP is not code that you can read. It's the know-how of their team. The board tried to get a merger with Anthropic, probably the second best team in the world for this type of work. They don't seem to think they can "just re-hire".
- cellar_door 3y ago
  > Investors have no reason to worry about their investment in the tech What? They have a MASSIVE reason to worry: 3/4 board members are clearly not aligned with the profit motive. And D'angelo has a massive conflict of interest with monetizing their models.
  - righthand 3y ago
    How are they not aligned? They didn’t oust Sam because of profit they ousted him for dishonesty.
    - cellar_door 3y ago
      are you serious? they're board members of the non-profit... they don't have any shares in the for-profit subsidiary and thus no financial incentive for commercializing the IP meanwhile, all the employees are paid via a profit sharing scheme. 98% of them are backing Altman because they don't want to see their compensation nuked.
      - righthand 3y ago
        How does ousting Altman nuke compensation? If they keep working there and bring in a new CEO equivalent to Altman with less dishonesty then everyone still wins, except Altman.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  It's not about what the board can or can not do. It's about whether they can make it stick. I'm thinking they can't but plenty of clever people here on HN think they can. Time will tell.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Vindicated. I've never had such pushback on something that seemed so obvious.
- bostonsre 3y ago
  Is it the tech that is worth that much or the tech and the people that built the tech when future iterations of the product rely so heavily on the people? Losing 95 percent of the employees will definitely impact delivering future products and that will definitely impact future profits and that has to impact valuation.
- usefulcat 3y ago
  > OpenAI’s valuation isn’t because Sam Altman is worth $90B it’s the tech. It's the current AND future tech. If most of the people who made that tech jump ship, that does not bode well for the future development of the technology. Maybe if the tech were something more ordinary, sure, but I think we both agree that it's not. For an investor, the future prospects of the company are generally a lot more important than its present state.
- onetimeuse92304 3y ago
  > OpenAI’s valuation isn’t because Sam Altman is worth $90B it’s the tech. The IP might be worth something (no idea what kind of patents they hold), but the valuation is fundamentally based on the current products they have and promise of future tech the company can create. And the future value stream far outweighs the current product. And none of the future product is going to happen without people. Of course, OpenAI without Sam will hire new people. But if they have already hired the best and they already had worthwhile experience, hiring new people has almost zero chance to recreate their ability to create new products at least in short/medium term. Finding the right people and hiring them is far more difficult than it is assumed. Dropping money on the problem does not solve more than half of it.
4death4 3y ago
In a normal corporation, they would be empty shirts, because ultimately they serve at bequest of the share holders. But this is a non-profit so they actually have a lot of power and don't need to answer to anyone.
- hyperliner 3y ago
  But don’t they have to answer to the people who funded the nonprofit? I am ignorant, but you seem to be knowledgeable about this topic.
  - mminer237 3y ago
    They need to comply with any profit-sharing or loan repayments, but funders can't have any control. The only person who would have input into whether or not the board is properly fulfilling its non-profit mission would be the Delaware attorney general.
- dumpsterdiver 3y ago
  As we are all witnessing, they have to answer to their employees.
narrator 3y ago
So no evidence of wrongdoing then: -----> WHY DID THEY DO IT? <------ SERIOUSLY! They all just decided to wake up that day and say let's go fire Sam and blow up the company because "lack of candor" that they can't even give details on?? These are serious people doing serious stuff. These are not idiots. What the heck is going on? Can anyone explain?
- righthand 3y ago
  Yeah there has been plenty of explanation. Sam Altman has competing interests and was looking to leverage OpenAI’s tech in those interests.
  - rokizero 3y ago
    Source??
- elmepo 3y ago
  Considering Ilya regrets his decision, implying this wasn't an e/acc vs safety debate, the two most likely scenarios to me appear to be: A) DeAngelo getting revenge for custom GPTs killing his company Poe's core product. B) The board discovering Sam working to use OpenAI resources/IP to further his own personal business/political goals.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Considering Ilya regrets his decision, implying this wasn't an e/acc vs safety debate Does it? If it was exactly that but he misjudged the external response and resulting consequences, that would also be a reason for regret.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      That's very well possible but there is as of now no evidence to substantiate that. But that is what it ultimately could have boiled down to and if there is even a remote chance that it can be spun that way you can be sure that chance will be exploited - even if it wasn't originally the case!
jacquesm 3y ago
Well, at least he's still there. Wonder if they have a successor lined up already and whether or not that successor has already offered to resign. It is all reminiscent of the Monty Python Judean people's front scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUHk2RSMCS8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUHk2RSMCS8 Though, arguably they showed more discipline.
peteradio 3y ago
> Emmet is already threatening the board with resignation so says anonymous sources close to OpenAI who look suspiciously like MSFT wearing a fake mustache

righthand 3y ago

Why? The board announced the removal of a CEO which they have the power to do. It upset a bunch of employees who liked the CEO. The board is in search of a new CEO. OpenAI’s valuation isn’t because Sam Altman is worth $90B it’s the tech. The tech is fine. Investors have no reason to worry about their investment in the tech. The people under pressure are Sam Altman trying to reclaim his job he was fired from and Satya Nadella who is running a campaign to eat OpenAI. None of that is related to the functioning tech of OpenAI, all of it is related to the drama of what happened. Drama is not equal to money. I was sad when my favorite pet died too, but then eventually you get a new pet that’s just as good as a Worldcoin guy, maybe better.

gjsman-1000 3y ago
According to Stratechery, Microsoft does not just have the rights to use the source code and model weights for GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, but a clause saying that Microsoft could not use the models as foundations for their own projects was recently removed. > Investors have no reason to worry about their investment in the tech. If Stratechery is correct, this means that if Microsoft successfully poaches Sam Altman and friends, and vacuums OpenAI clean of talent, they will even be able to use the actual GPT-4 to build a Microsoft GPT-5. That should make investors sweat. If you lose the people and (possibly) the technology, what's left?
- himaraya 3y ago
  Source? Ben didn't read his cited source in his article yesterday.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    Currently, the claim is unproven. However, if I were an investor, I'd be pounding on the doors demanding for clarification.
    - himaraya 3y ago
      I meant, can you link the claim that the clause in question got removed?
      - gjsman-1000 3y ago
        https://stratechery.com/2023/openais-misalignment-and-microsofts-gain/ https://stratechery.com/2023/openais-misalignment-and-micros... "Microsoft’s original agreement with OpenAI also barred Microsoft from pursuing AGI based on OpenAI tech on its own; my understanding is that this clause was removed in the most recent agreement." (It's hidden under a citation bubble you need to click after the third paragraph.)
        himaraya 3y ago
        I see. Pursuing AGI sounds distinct from commercializing future versions of ChatGPT based on OpenAI IP. I imagine the exact legal wording in the contract makes all the difference. The WSJ article from June he cited indicates the license still comes with restrictions. 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
      I'd have my lawyers do the pounding.
- righthand 3y ago
  Yeah okay Microsoft poaches them but they still have to restart building everything from scratch which wouldn’t benefit Microsoft. Microsoft doesn’t want to poach talent, they can always do that with or without this incident. Microsoft wants the whole bundle. Hence the media campaign Satya is doing.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    No, the point is they would not have to start building everything from scratch.
    - righthand 3y ago
      That only happens if Microsoft acquires all of OpenAI, not if they just poach the employees. Poaching means starting again even if they have the road map in their head.
      - ebalit 3y ago
        They already have access to GPT4 per their agreement with OpenAI.
exitb 3y ago
Companies aren’t valued for their current state, but future prospects.
- righthand 3y ago
  Is Sam Altman a future prospect of LLMs? It’s not like he holds the secret to GPT v5 or anything.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I'd be surprised if Sam was by himself, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the people who signed that letter do hold the secret to the next big thing (GPT-5 probably isn't the next big thing; if it exists already it's likely just a nice iterative improvement and not a fundamental change).
  - squeaky-clean 3y ago
    Seeing the amount of employees that are willing to follow him, yes I'd say he is. If you have a mass exodus of employees, sure you can hire people to maintain ChatGPT 4, but they won't complete a GPT 5 or 6. That valuation is definitely based on the assumption that they will continue advancing AI and that they will consistently stay ahead of competitors for some time. They just axed both of those assumptions. ChatGPT 4 as the endgame is not worth 90 billion dollars.
3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
"It upset a bunch of employees. The tech is fine". Uhmm, it upset 98% (not figuratively, but mathematically) of all 700 employees who signed a petition to quit unless he's reinstated and for the board to resign. As for the tech... who... exactly do you think created, maintains and is developing future enhancement for the tech? Is it doing it by itself? Sorry, we're not there yet.
- righthand 3y ago
  > Uhmm, it upset 98% (not figuratively, but mathematically) of all 700 employees who signed a petition to quit unless he's reinstated and for the board to resign. And they have yet to leave as far as I know. Seems like no one is in an actual hurry to quit.
  - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
    Sam Altman is currently talking to the board. You want them to spin up drama by quitting in the middle of the talks? You're trying too hard to copy paste your desired narrative on this and it fits so, so, so poorly.
    - righthand 3y ago
      If Sam comes back it’ll be under heavy changes. The board isn’t going to leave. You don’t get ousted and then get to call the shots, no matter how many employees you think you have on your side. Furthermore the fact that Sam is in talks is further proof that he won’t be coming back on his terms. As the board why would you fold to the employees just because they like a guy? I’m not copy pasting anything, cute diss though.
      - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
        Sorry to be blunt, but literally everything you said so far was nonsense, so I'll understand your opinion as a sign that Sam Altman will come back and the board will resign.
thinkindie 3y ago
Technology is not made out of thin air but it is made - and maintained - by people; and when 500 out of 700 people threaten to quit on the spot and leave for competitors, or for Microsoft, investors might not be happy at all.
- spaceman_2020 3y ago
  It's not 500/700. It's like 728/770 last I checked. Almost everyone.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- jejeyyy77 3y ago
  Yes but as mentioned most of these people can be replaced.
flappyeagle 3y ago
> The board announced the removal of a CEO which they have the power to do. They have the power to remove him momentarily, do they have the power to keep him out? we're still finding out. > OpenAI’s valuation isn’t because Sam Altman is worth $90B it’s the tech. OpenAI's valuation is nominally because of the tech. It's fundamentally because of the people. 90% of the staff is threatening to follow Sam to $MS so that's the whole ball game. They went to OpenAI to make themselves rich. The board fired the guy that was trying to do that for them. > I was sad when my favorite pet died too, but then eventually you get a new pet that’s just as good as a Worldcoin guy, maybe better. Doesn't matter if you or I am sad. It only matters if the talent at OpenAI is sad. The board made them sad. Sam and Sataya make them happy.
- righthand 3y ago
  If it’s fundamentally about the people, can you name some of these 90% that OpenAI couldn’t live without? Other than Ilya? From where I’m sitting the 90% are replaceable in a flooded market of available software engineers. If Satya and Sam make them happy then go work for Microsoft. The board is calling their bluff right now.
  - flappyeagle 3y ago
    Do you think they hired those people because they're useless? > The board is calling their bluff right now The board is not doing much of anything. They picked a CEO then she went to team sam. Then they picked another CEO and now he's threatening them with resignation. Not to mention the 3 other people they tried to bring into the role who refused.
    - righthand 3y ago
      No I think they hired them because they can do the job the agreed to pay them. I don’t think these people are irreplaceable, that would be silly. That’s what Sam Altman wants you to think.
      - 3y ago
ben_w 3y ago
> OpenAI’s valuation isn’t because Sam Altman is worth $90B it’s the tech. The tech is fine. Investors have no reason to worry about their investment in the tech. The following story is only about an hour old, but the investors are reportedly considering legal action against the board: https://www.reuters.com/technology/openai-investors-considering-suing-board-after-ceos-abrupt-firing-sources-2023-11-20/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/openai-investors-consider...
code_runner 3y ago
They claimed to remove the CEO with cause. They have not provided cause. Even the twitch dude is asking for the cause. The board just firing off half-cocked and then going silent is probably a larger source the issues for employees than altman the person/leader. There is effectively nobody in the driver seat and the board can't be trusted to do anything in the best interests of the company.
- Clubber 3y ago
  They did provide cause, you just don't accept what they said as valid or detailed enough.
  - smegger001 3y ago
    No they made an extremely vague aligation with no concrete examples or evidence provided.
golergka 3y ago
> The tech is fine. Have you ever maintained the software where the original team left? I have. And though it was much less complex and cutting edge than what OpenAI is doing, it was a massive pain with loss of knowledge and time.
- righthand 3y ago
  Yes I have. I’ve even added features to legacy software and have made that a part of my mentoring to engineers to not reinvent the wheel and be good at reading and understanding code. I don’t think it’s a loss because the company has chosen to invest in that software. I include that time as onboarding for a project.
  - ebalit 3y ago
    OpenAI IP is not code that you can read. It's the know-how of their team. The board tried to get a merger with Anthropic, probably the second best team in the world for this type of work. They don't seem to think they can "just re-hire".
cellar_door 3y ago
> Investors have no reason to worry about their investment in the tech What? They have a MASSIVE reason to worry: 3/4 board members are clearly not aligned with the profit motive. And D'angelo has a massive conflict of interest with monetizing their models.
- righthand 3y ago
  How are they not aligned? They didn’t oust Sam because of profit they ousted him for dishonesty.
  - cellar_door 3y ago
    are you serious? they're board members of the non-profit... they don't have any shares in the for-profit subsidiary and thus no financial incentive for commercializing the IP meanwhile, all the employees are paid via a profit sharing scheme. 98% of them are backing Altman because they don't want to see their compensation nuked.
    - righthand 3y ago
      How does ousting Altman nuke compensation? If they keep working there and bring in a new CEO equivalent to Altman with less dishonesty then everyone still wins, except Altman.
jacquesm 3y ago
It's not about what the board can or can not do. It's about whether they can make it stick. I'm thinking they can't but plenty of clever people here on HN think they can. Time will tell.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Vindicated. I've never had such pushback on something that seemed so obvious.
bostonsre 3y ago
Is it the tech that is worth that much or the tech and the people that built the tech when future iterations of the product rely so heavily on the people? Losing 95 percent of the employees will definitely impact delivering future products and that will definitely impact future profits and that has to impact valuation.
usefulcat 3y ago
> OpenAI’s valuation isn’t because Sam Altman is worth $90B it’s the tech. It's the current AND future tech. If most of the people who made that tech jump ship, that does not bode well for the future development of the technology. Maybe if the tech were something more ordinary, sure, but I think we both agree that it's not. For an investor, the future prospects of the company are generally a lot more important than its present state.
onetimeuse92304 3y ago
> OpenAI’s valuation isn’t because Sam Altman is worth $90B it’s the tech. The IP might be worth something (no idea what kind of patents they hold), but the valuation is fundamentally based on the current products they have and promise of future tech the company can create. And the future value stream far outweighs the current product. And none of the future product is going to happen without people. Of course, OpenAI without Sam will hire new people. But if they have already hired the best and they already had worthwhile experience, hiring new people has almost zero chance to recreate their ability to create new products at least in short/medium term. Finding the right people and hiring them is far more difficult than it is assumed. Dropping money on the problem does not solve more than half of it.

4death4 3y ago

In a normal corporation, they would be empty shirts, because ultimately they serve at bequest of the share holders. But this is a non-profit so they actually have a lot of power and don't need to answer to anyone.

hyperliner 3y ago
But don’t they have to answer to the people who funded the nonprofit? I am ignorant, but you seem to be knowledgeable about this topic.
- mminer237 3y ago
  They need to comply with any profit-sharing or loan repayments, but funders can't have any control. The only person who would have input into whether or not the board is properly fulfilling its non-profit mission would be the Delaware attorney general.
dumpsterdiver 3y ago
As we are all witnessing, they have to answer to their employees.

narrator 3y ago

So no evidence of wrongdoing then: -----> WHY DID THEY DO IT? <------ SERIOUSLY! They all just decided to wake up that day and say let's go fire Sam and blow up the company because "lack of candor" that they can't even give details on?? These are serious people doing serious stuff. These are not idiots. What the heck is going on? Can anyone explain?

righthand 3y ago
Yeah there has been plenty of explanation. Sam Altman has competing interests and was looking to leverage OpenAI’s tech in those interests.
- rokizero 3y ago
  Source??
elmepo 3y ago
Considering Ilya regrets his decision, implying this wasn't an e/acc vs safety debate, the two most likely scenarios to me appear to be: A) DeAngelo getting revenge for custom GPTs killing his company Poe's core product. B) The board discovering Sam working to use OpenAI resources/IP to further his own personal business/political goals.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Considering Ilya regrets his decision, implying this wasn't an e/acc vs safety debate Does it? If it was exactly that but he misjudged the external response and resulting consequences, that would also be a reason for regret.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That's very well possible but there is as of now no evidence to substantiate that. But that is what it ultimately could have boiled down to and if there is even a remote chance that it can be spun that way you can be sure that chance will be exploited - even if it wasn't originally the case!

jacquesm 3y ago

Well, at least he's still there. Wonder if they have a successor lined up already and whether or not that successor has already offered to resign. It is all reminiscent of the Monty Python Judean people's front scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUHk2RSMCS8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUHk2RSMCS8 Though, arguably they showed more discipline.

peteradio 3y ago

> Emmet is already threatening the board with resignation so says anonymous sources close to OpenAI who look suspiciously like MSFT wearing a fake mustache