3 ms·

It's not her job to overrule the people running the actual organization, 95% of the employees, and all of OpenAI's stakeholders without a good fucking reason.

Dlanv 3y ago
But it literally is
- danenania 3y ago
  She needs a legitimate reason. Without one, her actions could well be illegal. Being on a board doesn’t mean you can act with impunity or that you don’t owe anyone an explanation. You can’t accept bribes, commit fraud, etc. If you don’t explain yourself in a high stakes situation like this one where you are burning down the organization you claim to be safeguarding the interests of, people are rightfully going to start asking questions about what your motivations are.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    And who decides what's legitimate? The board. Who made the decision to fire Altman? The board. Who is the board answerable to? The law.
    - danenania 3y ago
      "Who is the board answerable to? The law." Which is why she needs a legitimate reason.
prospector1065 3y ago
From her perspective, she does have a good reason. And in what way was publishing the paper "overruling" the employees of the for-profit company? The board of the non-profit is beholden to their charter first and foremost
- danenania 3y ago
  “From her perspective, she does have a good reason.” Does she? In that case, perhaps she should tell someone what it is.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    She told the board. Who else should she tell?
    - ben_w 3y ago
      My limited understanding is that this was all that was strictly required, and would normally be sufficient. Nevertheless, when a board decision explodes into international headline news as this one did, my gut feeling is it might possibly be a good idea to make a press release with more details. But that's easy for me to say — I don't have the real insider information, and I wasn't in their shoes.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
What do you think a board does? It supervises the executive. It approves the actions of he executive. It hires and fires the CEO.

Dlanv 3y ago

But it literally is

danenania 3y ago
She needs a legitimate reason. Without one, her actions could well be illegal. Being on a board doesn’t mean you can act with impunity or that you don’t owe anyone an explanation. You can’t accept bribes, commit fraud, etc. If you don’t explain yourself in a high stakes situation like this one where you are burning down the organization you claim to be safeguarding the interests of, people are rightfully going to start asking questions about what your motivations are.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  And who decides what's legitimate? The board. Who made the decision to fire Altman? The board. Who is the board answerable to? The law.
  - danenania 3y ago
    "Who is the board answerable to? The law." Which is why she needs a legitimate reason.

prospector1065 3y ago

From her perspective, she does have a good reason. And in what way was publishing the paper "overruling" the employees of the for-profit company? The board of the non-profit is beholden to their charter first and foremost

danenania 3y ago
“From her perspective, she does have a good reason.” Does she? In that case, perhaps she should tell someone what it is.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  She told the board. Who else should she tell?
  - ben_w 3y ago
    My limited understanding is that this was all that was strictly required, and would normally be sufficient. Nevertheless, when a board decision explodes into international headline news as this one did, my gut feeling is it might possibly be a good idea to make a press release with more details. But that's easy for me to say — I don't have the real insider information, and I wasn't in their shoes.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

What do you think a board does? It supervises the executive. It approves the actions of he executive. It hires and fires the CEO.