4 ms·

I think you're taking the intuition from a for-profit company and wrongly applying it to a non-profit company. When a board member criticizes a for-profit compa

I think you're taking the intuition from a for-profit company and wrongly applying it to a non-profit company. When a board member criticizes a for-profit company, that's bad because the goal of the company is make a profit, and bad PR is bad for profit. A board member criticizing a non-profit doesn't have the same direct connection to a result opposite of the goals of the company. And if you actually read the page, it's an extremely mild criticism of OpenAI's decisions. This situation is simultaneously "reckless board makes ill-considered mistake to suddenly fire CEO with insufficient justification" and "non-profit CEO slowly changes the culture of a non-profit to turn it into profit-seeking enterprise that he has a large amount of control over".

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Aunche 3y ago
>A board member criticizing a non-profit doesn't have the same direct connection to a result opposite of the goals of the company. Even in a nonprofit, the board has an obligation to maintain a good working relationship with their organization. It's very rare for a board member to publicly criticized for their own organization. Also, this argument goes out the window because OpenAI is not just a nonprofit. When they started their for-profit subsidiary in 2019, they accepted a fiduciary duty to their investors.
- sarchertech 3y ago
  That’s not how that works. You can argue that Ilya has a fiduciary responsibility to the investors as an officer of the company. Toner doesn’t. She is an independent board member on the board of the non-profit that owns a controlling share in the company, but she doesn’t personally own a majority share of the company. As an independent board member, she has no duty but to uphold the charter. She represents no shareholders. Majority shareholders may have some fiduciary responsibility to minority shareholders, so you might be able to make the argument that the board as a whole shouldn’t write disparaging remarks about the company. But even that argument is tenuous.
  - Aunche 3y ago
    She joined the board of OpenAI knowing that they owned a for profit subsidiary that received billions of dollars of investment. Being independent means that she could provide a unique outsider perspective, not that she has no obligations to her organization whatsoever. If you're going to be completely independent, you shouldn't be surprised when over 90% of the organization turns against you.
    - sarchertech 3y ago
      Whether people turn against her or not is irrelevant to my point. She has no personal fiduciary duty to the minority shareholders in the for-profit company. Her only duty is to the charter.
      - Aunche 3y ago
        That people turned against her is relevant because it demonstrates how untenable this standard of independence is. A charter is just a collection of words. She isn't a board member to a collection of words. She's a board member to an organization of people
        sarchertech 3y ago
        It’s not relevant to my point that she has no fiduciary duty to anything but the charter. Her only personal fiduciary responsibility is to the mission defined in that collection of words, not to the employees of the for-profit. That’s how this works whether you think it should or not.
        Aunche 3y ago
        Are you going to engage with anything I say or are you just going repeat yourself again? Is there a divine stone tablet that commands a nonprofit board member is solely responsible for the nonprofit's charter that I'm missing?
- ruszki 3y ago
  > accepted a fiduciary duty to their investors. Did they?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Aunche 3y ago

>A board member criticizing a non-profit doesn't have the same direct connection to a result opposite of the goals of the company. Even in a nonprofit, the board has an obligation to maintain a good working relationship with their organization. It's very rare for a board member to publicly criticized for their own organization. Also, this argument goes out the window because OpenAI is not just a nonprofit. When they started their for-profit subsidiary in 2019, they accepted a fiduciary duty to their investors.

sarchertech 3y ago
That’s not how that works. You can argue that Ilya has a fiduciary responsibility to the investors as an officer of the company. Toner doesn’t. She is an independent board member on the board of the non-profit that owns a controlling share in the company, but she doesn’t personally own a majority share of the company. As an independent board member, she has no duty but to uphold the charter. She represents no shareholders. Majority shareholders may have some fiduciary responsibility to minority shareholders, so you might be able to make the argument that the board as a whole shouldn’t write disparaging remarks about the company. But even that argument is tenuous.
- Aunche 3y ago
  She joined the board of OpenAI knowing that they owned a for profit subsidiary that received billions of dollars of investment. Being independent means that she could provide a unique outsider perspective, not that she has no obligations to her organization whatsoever. If you're going to be completely independent, you shouldn't be surprised when over 90% of the organization turns against you.
  - sarchertech 3y ago
    Whether people turn against her or not is irrelevant to my point. She has no personal fiduciary duty to the minority shareholders in the for-profit company. Her only duty is to the charter.
    - Aunche 3y ago
      That people turned against her is relevant because it demonstrates how untenable this standard of independence is. A charter is just a collection of words. She isn't a board member to a collection of words. She's a board member to an organization of people
      - sarchertech 3y ago
        It’s not relevant to my point that she has no fiduciary duty to anything but the charter. Her only personal fiduciary responsibility is to the mission defined in that collection of words, not to the employees of the for-profit. That’s how this works whether you think it should or not.
        Aunche 3y ago
        Are you going to engage with anything I say or are you just going repeat yourself again? Is there a divine stone tablet that commands a nonprofit board member is solely responsible for the nonprofit's charter that I'm missing?
ruszki 3y ago
> accepted a fiduciary duty to their investors. Did they?