5 ms·

This is insane. "They had to fire Sam, because he was trying to take over the board". First: most boards are accountable to something other than themselves.

by powera 3y ago

This is insane. "They had to fire Sam, because he was trying to take over the board". First: most boards are accountable to something other than themselves. For the exact reason that it pre-empts that type of nonsense. Second: the anti-Sam Altman argument seems to be "let's shut the company down, because that will stop AGI from being invented". Which is blatant nonsense; nothing they do will stop anyone else. (with the minimal exception that the drama they have incepted might make this holiday week a complete loss for productivity). Third: in general, "publishing scholarly articles claiming the company is bad" is a good reason to remove someone from the board of a company. Some vague (and the fact that nobody will own up to anything publicly proves it is vague) ideological battle isn't a good enough rationale for the exception to a rule that suggests that her leaving the board soon would be a good idea.

comp_throw7 3y ago
> "They had to fire Sam, because he was trying to take over the board". I mean, yes? The board is explicitly there to replace the CEO if necessary. If the CEO stuffs the board full of their allies, it can no longer do that. > First: most boards are accountable to something other than themselves. For the exact reason that it pre-empts that type of nonsense. Boards of for-profits are accountable to shareholders because corporations with shareholders exist for the benefit of (among others) shareholders. Non-profit corporations exist to further their mission, and are accountable to the IRS in this regard. > Second: the anti-Sam Altman argument seems to be "let's shut the company down, because that will stop AGI from being invented". Which is blatant nonsense; nothing they do will stop anyone else. (with the minimal exception that the drama they have incepted might make this holiday week a complete loss for productivity). No, the argument is that Sam Altman trying to bump off a board member on an incredibly flimsy pretext would be an obvious attempt at seizing power. > Third: in general, "publishing scholarly articles claiming the company is bad" is a good reason to remove someone from the board of a company. Some vague (and the fact that nobody will own up to anything publicly proves it is vague) ideological battle isn't a good enough rationale for the exception to a rule that suggests that her leaving the board soon would be a good idea. This might be true w.r.t. for-profit boards (though not obviously so in every case), but seems nonsensical with non-profits. (Also, the article did not reductively claim "the company is bad".)
- usehand 3y ago
  if thats the case why didnt they just stuff the board when they had the chance?
  - negandnek 3y ago
    I think it’s also mentioned the article that they have failed to add new members to the board due to the disagreement between the board members.
    - usehand 3y ago
      then the argument that altman would be able to easily stuff the board doesnt hold -- he didnt even have majority. either you claim (1) that there was a risk of altman having majority and stuffing the board and hence concede that majority allows stuffing the board, in which case you concede the actual majority which was anti-altman could have done that or (2) you concede that having majority is not enough to stuff the board, in which case we were far from any risk of altman doing so, given that he did not even have a majority of the board --- edit because i cant seem to reply further down thread: i read the article. my point is precisely that the board had majority. that is how they got to fire altman in the first place. given they had majority they had the chance to stuff the board in their own favor, as per the argument above.
      - ruszki 3y ago
        You should read the article, because it’s clearly stated how Altman could get a majority. For your other concern, a simple vote change (like Ilya’s) can explain it.
    - murakamiiq84 3y ago
      Yeah it sounded like 3-3 gridlock until someone flipped, either it was Sam/Greg/Ilya against Adam/Helen/Tasha or it was Sam/Greg/Adam against Ilya/Helen/Tasha.
- mch82 3y ago
ralfd 3y ago
Do you think Sam is more aligned to OpenAI non-profit charter than Helen?
6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
> Second: the anti-Sam Altman argument seems to be "let's shut the company down... Isn't that the pro-Altman argument? The pro-Altman side is saying "let's shut the company down if we don't get our way." The anti-Altman side is saying "let's get rid of Sam Altman and keep going."
- powera 3y ago
  No. No it isn't. The board-aligned argument seems to be "destroying the company is the right thing to do if it helps the cause of AI alignment". Whereas the pro-Altman side seems to be "if you have the most successful startup since Google/Facebook, you shouldn't blow it up merely because of vague arguments about << alignment >> ".
  - ruszki 3y ago
    Your pro-Altman means that the argument should be won by Altman side, just because it’s a successful startup, while in reality, it’s a non-profit with a mission, which contradicts Altman’s position (according to the article).
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
    > "if you have the most successful startup since Google/Facebook, you shouldn't blow it up" ... But they aren't the ones blowing it up? Firing one guy, even the CEO, isn't blowing it up. The only side that directly threatened "if you don't do X, we blow it up" was the pro-Altman side.

by powera 3y ago

comp_throw7 3y ago

> "They had to fire Sam, because he was trying to take over the board". I mean, yes? The board is explicitly there to replace the CEO if necessary. If the CEO stuffs the board full of their allies, it can no longer do that. > First: most boards are accountable to something other than themselves. For the exact reason that it pre-empts that type of nonsense. Boards of for-profits are accountable to shareholders because corporations with shareholders exist for the benefit of (among others) shareholders. Non-profit corporations exist to further their mission, and are accountable to the IRS in this regard. > Second: the anti-Sam Altman argument seems to be "let's shut the company down, because that will stop AGI from being invented". Which is blatant nonsense; nothing they do will stop anyone else. (with the minimal exception that the drama they have incepted might make this holiday week a complete loss for productivity). No, the argument is that Sam Altman trying to bump off a board member on an incredibly flimsy pretext would be an obvious attempt at seizing power. > Third: in general, "publishing scholarly articles claiming the company is bad" is a good reason to remove someone from the board of a company. Some vague (and the fact that nobody will own up to anything publicly proves it is vague) ideological battle isn't a good enough rationale for the exception to a rule that suggests that her leaving the board soon would be a good idea. This might be true w.r.t. for-profit boards (though not obviously so in every case), but seems nonsensical with non-profits. (Also, the article did not reductively claim "the company is bad".)

usehand 3y ago
if thats the case why didnt they just stuff the board when they had the chance?
- negandnek 3y ago
  I think it’s also mentioned the article that they have failed to add new members to the board due to the disagreement between the board members.
  - usehand 3y ago
    then the argument that altman would be able to easily stuff the board doesnt hold -- he didnt even have majority. either you claim (1) that there was a risk of altman having majority and stuffing the board and hence concede that majority allows stuffing the board, in which case you concede the actual majority which was anti-altman could have done that or (2) you concede that having majority is not enough to stuff the board, in which case we were far from any risk of altman doing so, given that he did not even have a majority of the board --- edit because i cant seem to reply further down thread: i read the article. my point is precisely that the board had majority. that is how they got to fire altman in the first place. given they had majority they had the chance to stuff the board in their own favor, as per the argument above.
    - ruszki 3y ago
      You should read the article, because it’s clearly stated how Altman could get a majority. For your other concern, a simple vote change (like Ilya’s) can explain it.
  - murakamiiq84 3y ago
    Yeah it sounded like 3-3 gridlock until someone flipped, either it was Sam/Greg/Ilya against Adam/Helen/Tasha or it was Sam/Greg/Adam against Ilya/Helen/Tasha.
mch82 3y ago

ralfd 3y ago

Do you think Sam is more aligned to OpenAI non-profit charter than Helen?

6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago

> Second: the anti-Sam Altman argument seems to be "let's shut the company down... Isn't that the pro-Altman argument? The pro-Altman side is saying "let's shut the company down if we don't get our way." The anti-Altman side is saying "let's get rid of Sam Altman and keep going."

powera 3y ago
No. No it isn't. The board-aligned argument seems to be "destroying the company is the right thing to do if it helps the cause of AI alignment". Whereas the pro-Altman side seems to be "if you have the most successful startup since Google/Facebook, you shouldn't blow it up merely because of vague arguments about << alignment >> ".
- ruszki 3y ago
  Your pro-Altman means that the argument should be won by Altman side, just because it’s a successful startup, while in reality, it’s a non-profit with a mission, which contradicts Altman’s position (according to the article).
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
  > "if you have the most successful startup since Google/Facebook, you shouldn't blow it up" ... But they aren't the ones blowing it up? Firing one guy, even the CEO, isn't blowing it up. The only side that directly threatened "if you don't do X, we blow it up" was the pro-Altman side.