6 ms·

The worst thing about this whole affair has been the failure of the board to coherently express, seemingly to anyone, why they did what they did.

babberman 3y ago
My money is on "Board got big mad when Sam went on Joe Rogan and critiziced woke cancel culture".
- alexilliamson 3y ago
  No way. That interview was a full month and half ago. Moreover, these days everyone and their brother is going on JRE to complain about "woke".
  - natebc 3y ago
    Honestly I'm happy for those people to stay asleep. We'll all be better off.
neilv 3y ago
Maybe it's not defensible. Or maybe it involves a deal that they're stuck with, and now dependent upon, even if the terms aren't aligned well with the non-profit. Saying that could be awkward. What I can't guess at explanations for is publicly stating the not-consistently-candid in the initial announcement. I'm not expert on these things, but that sounds to me like either a euphemism for something that they needed to be seen as explicitly distancing the company from ASAP or a blunder that a lawyer or PR person would've advised them not to do, and which they didn't need to do.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  > Maybe it's not defensible. At this point, that's the 95% conclusion. If you were in this position and had even a sliver of defensibility to play, you would have already played it. Because the longer this goes, the more sharks circle and the less likely OpenAI's survival becomes. (UNLESS you thought you f---ed up and wanted Altman back so you want to be nice to him. But if you wanted that, you wouldn't have hired Shear as interim CEO to replace your previous interim CEO.)
  - SookeeLarry 3y ago
    [dead]
- squigglydonut 3y ago
  My first thought was that it's not defensible because it's a desired outcome and this route avoids either negative press or another consequence of him leaving of his own volition.
thinkingemote 3y ago
My most charitable interpretation: The board has bylaws governing how it works. One of them says that it has to have 48 hours notice before a special online meeting (to, e.g. agenda, minutes, resolutions, actions). I think a board member cannot speak officially on behalf of them before that. Perhaps they have already had a meeting to get legal advice before a further announcement? We might be due an announcement soon. Basically all boards work slow and we want instant responses which causes conflict. However it's still mind boggling to me that a) they didn't foresee the response of their decisions and b) they haven't produced anything on paper explaining things to the company afterwards. I would have expected the CEO to say something like "they are meeting at this date according to their by laws" but perhaps a CEO cannot reveal such information legally?
- jacquesm 3y ago
  If this board had worked slow we wouldn't be in this mess.
  - grendelt 3y ago
    "Move fast and break things", right?
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Well, they certainly managed.
- campbel 3y ago
  I think this is a reasonable take. I'm also not convinced that the board acted outside their mandate as stewards of the OpenAI non-profit. There are definitely reasonable suspicions, but we still don't have all the details.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  > all boards work slow They lost a CEO and chairman pretty suddenly....
0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
[flagged]
- civilitty 3y ago
  Wayback version: https://web.archive.org/web/20231121210833/https://gist.github.com/Xe/32d7bc436e401f3323ae77e7e242f858 https://web.archive.org/web/20231121210833/https://gist.gith...
- L_co 3y ago
  Looks to be down. I get a 404 on that link.
  - zorpner 3y ago
    Copy at IA: https://web.archive.org/web/20231121210833/https://gist.github.com/Xe/32d7bc436e401f3323ae77e7e242f858 https://web.archive.org/web/20231121210833/https://gist.gith... Digest mirror: https://static.space/sha2-256:a53e64b47b45972c3086e0300a8bb0b4c3ece36876861850fb68a48d92c9a870 https://static.space/sha2-256:a53e64b47b45972c3086e0300a8bb0...
- crazygringo 3y ago
  Discussed earlier (99 votes) and flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38369570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38369570 Comments suggest there's no way to know if it's authentic (probably why flagged), nor does it seem particularly relevant (standard tech company politics).
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
    Yeah that's why I hope a journalist looks into it. In any case, it seems about as relevant as other recent OpenAI politics posts.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
rvba 3y ago
Reminds me of privatization in the Soviet states. I can build such a funny hypothetical scenario. Step1 get on a board of a big company. Random board members leave and out of 9 people in the original board there are only 6 left. 3 of them dont like each other. Pit them against each other to oust the 2 of them. So now only 4 remain. Now oust the last guy whose vote you needed earlier (to kick out the other people). You dont need him anymore. He can write some random complaint letters, who cares. He can even stay on the board, the clique can always outvote him. Now only 3-4 left on board. Recruit spouses and grandparents to the board to fill back to 9. In fact, you dont even have to - you answer to nobody as long as you stay on the board. Congrats, you now control an 80 billion company. Sell the intellectual property to highest bidder in a bargain sale for 20b, then pay each other 10b in salaries, use 9b for legal fees and start a new startup for 1b for fiduciary duties as a fig leave to show that the non profit still operates. Oh also allegedly most employees want to quit, but whatever, use a dollar bill to wipe your tears. Wouldnt all that be absolutely legal? In Soviet states probably. In USA?
- zx8080 3y ago
  Too complicated. In Soviet Russia, oligarchs just used AK-47 to wipe a board out. AK is a simple and efficient privatization tool.
  - type0 3y ago
    Soviet Russia had no oligarchs
  - jakderrida 3y ago
    >In Soviet Russia, oligarchs just used AK-47 to wipe a board out. That's not what I recall. They didn't need to. The Loans for Shares Scheme became public knowledge (sort of) and everyone realized the oligarchs literally stole everything. Every major industry that millions had died to make in Stalin's five year plans with the promise of a coming utopia was the private property of those connected with Yeltsin. Fortunately for them, the people didn't understand capitalism enough to know what happened or they'd be rioting in the streets.
upwardbound 3y ago
Best theory I've heard is that the board sought to distance themselves from Sam because they got advance warning of the big copyright infringement lawsuit that just dropped today. In other words, what if they knew the suit was coming and sought to make Sam the fall guy by firing him sort-of-for-cause ... but they're stuck, because they can't explain what the cause reason was, without admitting the board was aware of the misconduct. https://www.semafor.com/article/11/21/2023/openai-microsoft-sued-for-copyright-infringement-in-new-class-action-lawsuit https://www.semafor.com/article/11/21/2023/openai-microsoft-...
- kvmet 3y ago
  But then why not wait a few extra days and then have something to write down in the "Reason" box on his pink slip? Even if this turns out to be true it still smells like incompetence.
  - upwardbound 3y ago
    Great question. Yeah, probably they panicked and made a huge mistake.
- joenot443 3y ago
  I think it’s becoming more and more clear they were acting out of incompetence, I really doubt there’ll come to light a justifiable reason for their actions.
- jakderrida 3y ago
  Honestly, I actually believe the books2 corpus controversy is true. Where else, other than library genesis, would they come across 500B tokens of books? Considering books1 is 50B and they describe that as open domain books, what's left would seem to me to be books that they don't have the rights to use or right to have digitally. I'm not bemoaning them for it. I'd do the same thing because I don't really give af about copyright laws. It also seems obvious by the way each were treated in the training process. They pretty much say that while books1 corpus was trained on several times, they used books2 far less. That's exactly what I would say to cover my ass so that when I'm caught, I can tell them, "Look, though, we barely even used it. In fact, the paper overstates our use. As far as remember, we only used the table of contents. And not even the whole table of contents. Just a fraction of it. Are you gonna arrest me for using a fraction of the table of contents?"
woopsn 3y ago
What is there to explain? Sam Altman played a stupid game, founding a sham nonprofit instead of a startup, and won a stupid prize when the board fired him for dishonesty.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  > What is there to explain? Why Altman was fired.
- m3kw9 3y ago
  The genius board allowed it to happen.
  - woopsn 3y ago
    Certain prominent members noped out, but yeah.
- lmm 3y ago
  > Sam Altman played a stupid game, founding a sham nonprofit instead of a startup, and won a stupid prize when the board fired him for dishonesty. What dishonesty? I'm sympathetic to this version of events, but if it's true then the board ought to be able to give specifics - and if they can't then the strident tone of the initial announcement was unjustified.
- BanTheBastards 3y ago
  It would help if anyone believed Silicon Valley was capable of producing a non-profit of any value to begin with.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
SookeeLarry 3y ago
[dead]
keepamovin 3y ago
Why? It should be obvious: power. But that also means that it doesn't matter what they say, because they'll lie to conceal that this was really a power play, driven by petty looking rivalries. (Was) a hundred billion dollar rocketship, pioneering the future. That this is only the first such palace intrigue we've seen is surprising. The root of the problem seems to lie in the challenges of growth and the accompanying pressures. The issues we've observed in the past week are likely tied to weak or ineffective leadership. This isn't just about leading developers or the technical team; it's about leadership at every level within the company. If leadership were strong and clear, I doubt these issues would have arisen. It's like whenever there is a power vacuum, all the possible contenders compete and there's chaos. The existence of chaos suggests at least that there's a power vacuum at the top. Similar to when big leaders throughout history died, their children/lieutenants then fought and caused civil wars (e.g Mongols). But while a leader is strong, there can be stability. Take, for instance, Facebook during its initial growth phase. Despite facing intense pressure from various quarters, it never descended into chaos or disarray. This stability could be attributed to a robust board, or perhaps to Mark Zuckerberg's leadership effectiveness. Whatever your opinion of him, his leadership across all levels of the company and on the board seemed to prevent competing interests from creating chaos. This situation also underscores the importance of selecting the right people for the board. It's not just about finding smart individuals who look good on paper or focusing on trendy topics like AI ethics. The board members need a deep understanding of startups and business. Maybe the current board's inexperience and theoretical approach are issues. It could be that they are too young or resemble a vanity board more than an effective one. However, we can't place all the blame on the board. Strong, clear, and effective leadership at the top is crucial. Sam Altman might excel in many areas, but perhaps what's needed is a leader like Zuckerberg at Facebook (and perhaps a similar leadership structure, too), or current-era Musk, someone who could have possibly prevented these problems.
- digbybk 3y ago
  > It should be obvious: power. But that also means that it doesn't matter what they say, because they'll lie to conceal that this was really a power play, driven by petty looking rivalries. Am I the only one who finds these kinds of explanations unconvincing? I don't think anyone knows precisely what was going through Sutskever's mind on Friday, but whenever the best explanation people have for an event is that an obviously very smart person suddenly became very stupid, it gives me the feeling that we don't have all the information.
ChatGTP 3y ago
Who cares honestly?
evbogue 3y ago
And does it have anything to do with this? https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/10/30/fact-sheet-president-biden-issues-executive-order-on-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
BanTheBastards 3y ago
Hat tools does any of us plebs have in this country have to compel reasonable behavior from board members? As far as I can tell in this country you're not even legally allowed to be on a board if you're not a narcissistic, antisocial cretin.
oliwarner 3y ago
The worst thing is the swell of people who feel they have the right to know. It's a private business decision, not gossip. Also, when you fire somebody with cause, you don't broadcast the gory details. You're not trying to destroy them, just get them out of your orbit. Retaining the whole reason also limits the legal comeback. Personally pretty tired of the drama.

babberman 3y ago

My money is on "Board got big mad when Sam went on Joe Rogan and critiziced woke cancel culture".

alexilliamson 3y ago
No way. That interview was a full month and half ago. Moreover, these days everyone and their brother is going on JRE to complain about "woke".
- natebc 3y ago
  Honestly I'm happy for those people to stay asleep. We'll all be better off.

neilv 3y ago

Maybe it's not defensible. Or maybe it involves a deal that they're stuck with, and now dependent upon, even if the terms aren't aligned well with the non-profit. Saying that could be awkward. What I can't guess at explanations for is publicly stating the not-consistently-candid in the initial announcement. I'm not expert on these things, but that sounds to me like either a euphemism for something that they needed to be seen as explicitly distancing the company from ASAP or a blunder that a lawyer or PR person would've advised them not to do, and which they didn't need to do.

paulddraper 3y ago
> Maybe it's not defensible. At this point, that's the 95% conclusion. If you were in this position and had even a sliver of defensibility to play, you would have already played it. Because the longer this goes, the more sharks circle and the less likely OpenAI's survival becomes. (UNLESS you thought you f---ed up and wanted Altman back so you want to be nice to him. But if you wanted that, you wouldn't have hired Shear as interim CEO to replace your previous interim CEO.)
- SookeeLarry 3y ago
  [dead]
squigglydonut 3y ago
My first thought was that it's not defensible because it's a desired outcome and this route avoids either negative press or another consequence of him leaving of his own volition.

thinkingemote 3y ago

My most charitable interpretation: The board has bylaws governing how it works. One of them says that it has to have 48 hours notice before a special online meeting (to, e.g. agenda, minutes, resolutions, actions). I think a board member cannot speak officially on behalf of them before that. Perhaps they have already had a meeting to get legal advice before a further announcement? We might be due an announcement soon. Basically all boards work slow and we want instant responses which causes conflict. However it's still mind boggling to me that a) they didn't foresee the response of their decisions and b) they haven't produced anything on paper explaining things to the company afterwards. I would have expected the CEO to say something like "they are meeting at this date according to their by laws" but perhaps a CEO cannot reveal such information legally?

jacquesm 3y ago
If this board had worked slow we wouldn't be in this mess.
- grendelt 3y ago
  "Move fast and break things", right?
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Well, they certainly managed.
campbel 3y ago
I think this is a reasonable take. I'm also not convinced that the board acted outside their mandate as stewards of the OpenAI non-profit. There are definitely reasonable suspicions, but we still don't have all the details.
paulddraper 3y ago
> all boards work slow They lost a CEO and chairman pretty suddenly....

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago

[flagged]

civilitty 3y ago
Wayback version: https://web.archive.org/web/20231121210833/https://gist.github.com/Xe/32d7bc436e401f3323ae77e7e242f858 https://web.archive.org/web/20231121210833/https://gist.gith...
L_co 3y ago
Looks to be down. I get a 404 on that link.
- zorpner 3y ago
  Copy at IA: https://web.archive.org/web/20231121210833/https://gist.github.com/Xe/32d7bc436e401f3323ae77e7e242f858 https://web.archive.org/web/20231121210833/https://gist.gith... Digest mirror: https://static.space/sha2-256:a53e64b47b45972c3086e0300a8bb0b4c3ece36876861850fb68a48d92c9a870 https://static.space/sha2-256:a53e64b47b45972c3086e0300a8bb0...
crazygringo 3y ago
Discussed earlier (99 votes) and flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38369570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38369570 Comments suggest there's no way to know if it's authentic (probably why flagged), nor does it seem particularly relevant (standard tech company politics).
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  Yeah that's why I hope a journalist looks into it. In any case, it seems about as relevant as other recent OpenAI politics posts.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rvba 3y ago

Reminds me of privatization in the Soviet states. I can build such a funny hypothetical scenario. Step1 get on a board of a big company. Random board members leave and out of 9 people in the original board there are only 6 left. 3 of them dont like each other. Pit them against each other to oust the 2 of them. So now only 4 remain. Now oust the last guy whose vote you needed earlier (to kick out the other people). You dont need him anymore. He can write some random complaint letters, who cares. He can even stay on the board, the clique can always outvote him. Now only 3-4 left on board. Recruit spouses and grandparents to the board to fill back to 9. In fact, you dont even have to - you answer to nobody as long as you stay on the board. Congrats, you now control an 80 billion company. Sell the intellectual property to highest bidder in a bargain sale for 20b, then pay each other 10b in salaries, use 9b for legal fees and start a new startup for 1b for fiduciary duties as a fig leave to show that the non profit still operates. Oh also allegedly most employees want to quit, but whatever, use a dollar bill to wipe your tears. Wouldnt all that be absolutely legal? In Soviet states probably. In USA?

zx8080 3y ago
Too complicated. In Soviet Russia, oligarchs just used AK-47 to wipe a board out. AK is a simple and efficient privatization tool.
- type0 3y ago
  Soviet Russia had no oligarchs
- jakderrida 3y ago
  >In Soviet Russia, oligarchs just used AK-47 to wipe a board out. That's not what I recall. They didn't need to. The Loans for Shares Scheme became public knowledge (sort of) and everyone realized the oligarchs literally stole everything. Every major industry that millions had died to make in Stalin's five year plans with the promise of a coming utopia was the private property of those connected with Yeltsin. Fortunately for them, the people didn't understand capitalism enough to know what happened or they'd be rioting in the streets.

upwardbound 3y ago

Best theory I've heard is that the board sought to distance themselves from Sam because they got advance warning of the big copyright infringement lawsuit that just dropped today. In other words, what if they knew the suit was coming and sought to make Sam the fall guy by firing him sort-of-for-cause ... but they're stuck, because they can't explain what the cause reason was, without admitting the board was aware of the misconduct. https://www.semafor.com/article/11/21/2023/openai-microsoft-sued-for-copyright-infringement-in-new-class-action-lawsuit https://www.semafor.com/article/11/21/2023/openai-microsoft-...

kvmet 3y ago
But then why not wait a few extra days and then have something to write down in the "Reason" box on his pink slip? Even if this turns out to be true it still smells like incompetence.
- upwardbound 3y ago
  Great question. Yeah, probably they panicked and made a huge mistake.
joenot443 3y ago
I think it’s becoming more and more clear they were acting out of incompetence, I really doubt there’ll come to light a justifiable reason for their actions.
jakderrida 3y ago
Honestly, I actually believe the books2 corpus controversy is true. Where else, other than library genesis, would they come across 500B tokens of books? Considering books1 is 50B and they describe that as open domain books, what's left would seem to me to be books that they don't have the rights to use or right to have digitally. I'm not bemoaning them for it. I'd do the same thing because I don't really give af about copyright laws. It also seems obvious by the way each were treated in the training process. They pretty much say that while books1 corpus was trained on several times, they used books2 far less. That's exactly what I would say to cover my ass so that when I'm caught, I can tell them, "Look, though, we barely even used it. In fact, the paper overstates our use. As far as remember, we only used the table of contents. And not even the whole table of contents. Just a fraction of it. Are you gonna arrest me for using a fraction of the table of contents?"

woopsn 3y ago

What is there to explain? Sam Altman played a stupid game, founding a sham nonprofit instead of a startup, and won a stupid prize when the board fired him for dishonesty.

paulddraper 3y ago
> What is there to explain? Why Altman was fired.
m3kw9 3y ago
The genius board allowed it to happen.
- woopsn 3y ago
  Certain prominent members noped out, but yeah.
lmm 3y ago
> Sam Altman played a stupid game, founding a sham nonprofit instead of a startup, and won a stupid prize when the board fired him for dishonesty. What dishonesty? I'm sympathetic to this version of events, but if it's true then the board ought to be able to give specifics - and if they can't then the strident tone of the initial announcement was unjustified.
BanTheBastards 3y ago
It would help if anyone believed Silicon Valley was capable of producing a non-profit of any value to begin with.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

SookeeLarry 3y ago

[dead]

keepamovin 3y ago

Why? It should be obvious: power. But that also means that it doesn't matter what they say, because they'll lie to conceal that this was really a power play, driven by petty looking rivalries. (Was) a hundred billion dollar rocketship, pioneering the future. That this is only the first such palace intrigue we've seen is surprising. The root of the problem seems to lie in the challenges of growth and the accompanying pressures. The issues we've observed in the past week are likely tied to weak or ineffective leadership. This isn't just about leading developers or the technical team; it's about leadership at every level within the company. If leadership were strong and clear, I doubt these issues would have arisen. It's like whenever there is a power vacuum, all the possible contenders compete and there's chaos. The existence of chaos suggests at least that there's a power vacuum at the top. Similar to when big leaders throughout history died, their children/lieutenants then fought and caused civil wars (e.g Mongols). But while a leader is strong, there can be stability. Take, for instance, Facebook during its initial growth phase. Despite facing intense pressure from various quarters, it never descended into chaos or disarray. This stability could be attributed to a robust board, or perhaps to Mark Zuckerberg's leadership effectiveness. Whatever your opinion of him, his leadership across all levels of the company and on the board seemed to prevent competing interests from creating chaos. This situation also underscores the importance of selecting the right people for the board. It's not just about finding smart individuals who look good on paper or focusing on trendy topics like AI ethics. The board members need a deep understanding of startups and business. Maybe the current board's inexperience and theoretical approach are issues. It could be that they are too young or resemble a vanity board more than an effective one. However, we can't place all the blame on the board. Strong, clear, and effective leadership at the top is crucial. Sam Altman might excel in many areas, but perhaps what's needed is a leader like Zuckerberg at Facebook (and perhaps a similar leadership structure, too), or current-era Musk, someone who could have possibly prevented these problems.

digbybk 3y ago
> It should be obvious: power. But that also means that it doesn't matter what they say, because they'll lie to conceal that this was really a power play, driven by petty looking rivalries. Am I the only one who finds these kinds of explanations unconvincing? I don't think anyone knows precisely what was going through Sutskever's mind on Friday, but whenever the best explanation people have for an event is that an obviously very smart person suddenly became very stupid, it gives me the feeling that we don't have all the information.

ChatGTP 3y ago

Who cares honestly?

evbogue 3y ago

And does it have anything to do with this? https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/10/30/fact-sheet-president-biden-issues-executive-order-on-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

BanTheBastards 3y ago

Hat tools does any of us plebs have in this country have to compel reasonable behavior from board members? As far as I can tell in this country you're not even legally allowed to be on a board if you're not a narcissistic, antisocial cretin.

oliwarner 3y ago

The worst thing is the swell of people who feel they have the right to know. It's a private business decision, not gossip. Also, when you fire somebody with cause, you don't broadcast the gory details. You're not trying to destroy them, just get them out of your orbit. Retaining the whole reason also limits the legal comeback. Personally pretty tired of the drama.