7 ms·
From the outside none of this makes much sense. So the old board just disliked him enough to oust him but apparently didn’t have a good pulse on the company and
by turndown 3y ago
From the outside none of this makes much sense. So the old board just disliked him enough to oust him but apparently didn’t have a good pulse on the company and overplayed their hand?
- fruit2020 3y agoIt’s about money and power. Not AI safety or people disliking each other.
- jychang 3y agoWhat money? None of them had equity
- consp 3y agoNot having money while everyone becomes filthy rich is also a money motivator.
- MVissers 3y agoThey’ll all be filthy rich if they can keep doing this. Altman was already side-hussling to get funding for other AI companies. Same with employees and their stock comp. Same with microsoft.
- ravst3s 3y agoThe had some equity after 2019. Thrive was about to buy employee shares at a $86 bn valuation. The Information said that those units had 12x since 2021. https://www.theinformation.com/articles/thrive-capital-to-lead-purchase-of-openai-employee-shares-at-80-billion-plus-valuation?rc=e7g9iy https://www.theinformation.com/articles/thrive-capital-to-le...
- Davidzheng 3y agoThere's no proof on either side. Just as likely to be ideological disputes from Helen and Ilya.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- yosame 3y agoAs far as I can tell, Sam did something? to get fired by the board, who are meant to be driven by non-profit ideals instead of corporate profits (probably from Sam pushing profit over safety, but there's no real way to know). From that, basically the whole company threatened to quit and move to Microsoft, showing the board that their power is purely ornamental. To retain any sort of power or say over decision making whatsoever, the board made concessions and got Sam back. Really it just shows the whole non-profit arm of the company was even more of a lie then it appeared.
- maxdoop 3y agoWhere is this blind trust for the board coming from? The board provided zero rationale for firing Sam.
- evantbyrne 3y agoThey did give reasons they were just vague. Reading between the lines, it seems the board was implying that Sam was trying to manipulate the board members individually. Was it true? Who knows. And as an outside observer, who cares? This is a fight between rich people about who gets to be richer. AI is so much larger than one cultish startup.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nbanks 3y agoThey wanted a new CEO and didn't expect Sam to take 95% of the company with him when he left. Sam also played his hand extremely well; he's likely learned from watching hundreds of founder blowups over the years. He never really seemed angry publicly as he gained support from all the staff including Ilya & Mira. I had little doubt Emmett Shear would also welcome Sam's return since they were both in the first YC batch together.
- baruz 3y ago> They wanted a new CEO If that were the case, would they not have presented the new CEO immediately for an “orderly transition”? As I understand it, Ms Murati tried to get Altman back, and when she pressured the board, they tried at least two other possible CEOs before settling on Mr Shear, who also threatened to leave if they could not give evidence of a legal reason for firing Altman. It smells like a personality conflict.