5 ms·

I think this outcome was actually much more favorable to D'Angelo's faction than people realize. The truth is before this Sam was basically running circles arou

I think this outcome was actually much more favorable to D'Angelo's faction than people realize. The truth is before this Sam was basically running circles around the board and doing whatever he wanted on the profit side- that's what was pissing them off so much in the first place. He was even trying to depose board members who were openly critical of open AI's practices. From here on out there is going to be far more media scrutiny on who gets picked as a board member, where they stand on the company's policies, and just how independent they really are. Sam, Greg and even Ilya are off the board altogether. Whoever they can all agree on to fill the remaining seats, Sam is going to have to be a lot more subservient to them to keep the peace.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
> Sam, Greg and even Ilya are off the board altogether. Whoever they can all agree on to fill the remaining seats, Sam is going to have to be a lot more subservient to them to keep the peace. The existing board is just a seat-warming body until Altman and Microsoft can stack it with favorables to their (and the U.S. Government’s) interests. The naïveté from the NPO faction was believing they’d be able to develop these capacities outside the strict control of the military industrial complex when AI has been established as part of the new Cold War with China.
- ah765 3y ago
  According to this tweet thread[1], they negotiated hard for Sam to be off the board and Adam to stay on. That indicates, at least if we're being optimistic, that the current board is not in Sam's pocket (otherwise they wouldn't have bothered) [1]:(https://twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/1727216818648134101 https://twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/1727216818648134101)
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    I’m sorry, but that’s all kayfabe. If there is one thing that’s been demonstrated in this whole fiasco, it’s who really has all the power at OpenAI (and it’s not the board).
  - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
    Yeah the board is kind of pointless now. They can't control the CEO, neither fire him. They can't take actions to take back the back control from Microsoft and Sam because Sam is the CEO. Even if Sam is of the utmost morality, he would be crazy to help them back into a strong position after last week. So it's the Sam & Microsoft show now, only a master schemer can get back some power to the board.
    - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
      It would be an interesting move to install a co-ceo in a few months. That would be harder to object for Sam
    - notahacker 3y ago
      Yeah, that's my take. Doesn't really matter if the composition of the board is to Adam's liking and has a couple more heavy hitters if Sam is untouchable and Microsoft is signalling that any time OpenAI acts against its interests they will take steps to ensure it ceases to have any staff or funding.
- kmlevitt 3y ago
  >The existing board is just a seat-warming body until Altman and Microsoft can stack it with favorables to their (and the U.S. Government’s) interests. That's incorrect. The new members will be chosen by D'Angelo and the two new independent board members. Both of which D'Angelo had a big hand in choosing. I'm not saying Larry Summers etc going to be in D'Angelo's pocket. But the whole reason he agreed to those picks is because he knows they won't be in Sam's pocket, either. More likely they will act independently and choose future members that they sincerely believe will be the best picks for the nonprofit.
eviks 3y ago
Doesn't make sense that after such a broad board capitulation the next one will have any power, and media scrutiny isn't a powerful governance mechanism
- kmlevitt 3y ago
  When you consider they were acting under the threat of the entire company walking out and the threat of endless lawsuits, this is a remarkably mild capitulation. All the new board members are going to be chosen by D'Angelo and two new board members that he also had a big hand in choosing. And say what you want about Larry Summers, but he's not going to be either Sam's or even Microsoft's bitch.
  - imjonse 3y ago
    I wonder what is the rationale for picking a seasoned politician and economist (influenced deregulation of US finance system, was friends with Epstein, had a few controversies listed there). Has the government also entered the chat so obviously?
    - choult 3y ago
      It probably means that they anticipate a need for dealing with the government in future, such as having a hand in regulation of their industry.
    - voster 3y ago
      They had congressman Will Hurd on the board before. Govt-adjacent people on non-profits are common for many reasons - understanding regulatory requirements, access to people, but also actual "good" reasons like the fact that many people who work close to the state genuinely have good intentions on social good (whether you agree with their interpretation of it or not)
  - eviks 3y ago
    What I'd want to say about Larry is that he is definitely not going to care about the whole-society non-profit shtick of the company to any degree comparable with the previous board members, so he won't constraint Sam/MS in any way
jatins 3y ago
> He was even trying to depose board members who were openly critical of open AI's practices. Was there any concrete criticism in the paper that was written by that board member? (Genuinely asking, not a leading question)
moonsu 3y ago
> The truth is before this Sam was basically running circles around the board and doing whatever he wanted on the profit side- that's what was pissing them off so much in the first place. He was even trying to depose board members who were openly critical of open AI's practices. Do you have a source for this?
- kmlevitt 3y ago
  New York Times. He was "reprimanding" Toner, a board member, for writing an article critical of open AI. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/21/technology/openai-altman-board-fight.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/21/technology/openai-altman-... Getting his way: The Wall Street Journal article. They said he usually got his way, but that he was so skillful at it that they were hard-pressed to explain exactly how he managed to pull it off. https://archive.is/20231122033417/https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/altman-firing-openai-520a3a8c#selection-1249.131-1249.333 https://archive.is/20231122033417/https://www.wsj.com/tech/a... Bottom line he had a lot more power over the board then than he will now.
cyanydeez 3y ago
Eh, Larry Summers is on this board. That means they're now going to protect business interests. OpenAI is now just a tool used by Businesses. And they dont have a good history of benefitting humanity recently.
- kofejnik 3y ago
  Larry Summers is EA and State, so not so sure about business interests
nashashmi 3y ago
Media >= employees? Media >= Sam? I don't think media has any role on oversight or governance. I think Sam came out the winner. He gets to pick his board. He gets to narrow his employees. If anything, this sets him up for dictatorship. The only other overseers are the investors. In that case, Microsoft came out holding a leash. No MS, means no Sam, which also means employees have no say. So it is more like MS > Sam > employees. MS+Sam > rest of investors.

bugglebeetle 3y ago

> Sam, Greg and even Ilya are off the board altogether. Whoever they can all agree on to fill the remaining seats, Sam is going to have to be a lot more subservient to them to keep the peace. The existing board is just a seat-warming body until Altman and Microsoft can stack it with favorables to their (and the U.S. Government’s) interests. The naïveté from the NPO faction was believing they’d be able to develop these capacities outside the strict control of the military industrial complex when AI has been established as part of the new Cold War with China.

ah765 3y ago
According to this tweet thread[1], they negotiated hard for Sam to be off the board and Adam to stay on. That indicates, at least if we're being optimistic, that the current board is not in Sam's pocket (otherwise they wouldn't have bothered) [1]:(https://twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/1727216818648134101 https://twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/1727216818648134101)
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  I’m sorry, but that’s all kayfabe. If there is one thing that’s been demonstrated in this whole fiasco, it’s who really has all the power at OpenAI (and it’s not the board).
- wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
  Yeah the board is kind of pointless now. They can't control the CEO, neither fire him. They can't take actions to take back the back control from Microsoft and Sam because Sam is the CEO. Even if Sam is of the utmost morality, he would be crazy to help them back into a strong position after last week. So it's the Sam & Microsoft show now, only a master schemer can get back some power to the board.
  - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
    It would be an interesting move to install a co-ceo in a few months. That would be harder to object for Sam
  - notahacker 3y ago
    Yeah, that's my take. Doesn't really matter if the composition of the board is to Adam's liking and has a couple more heavy hitters if Sam is untouchable and Microsoft is signalling that any time OpenAI acts against its interests they will take steps to ensure it ceases to have any staff or funding.
kmlevitt 3y ago
>The existing board is just a seat-warming body until Altman and Microsoft can stack it with favorables to their (and the U.S. Government’s) interests. That's incorrect. The new members will be chosen by D'Angelo and the two new independent board members. Both of which D'Angelo had a big hand in choosing. I'm not saying Larry Summers etc going to be in D'Angelo's pocket. But the whole reason he agreed to those picks is because he knows they won't be in Sam's pocket, either. More likely they will act independently and choose future members that they sincerely believe will be the best picks for the nonprofit.

eviks 3y ago

Doesn't make sense that after such a broad board capitulation the next one will have any power, and media scrutiny isn't a powerful governance mechanism

kmlevitt 3y ago
When you consider they were acting under the threat of the entire company walking out and the threat of endless lawsuits, this is a remarkably mild capitulation. All the new board members are going to be chosen by D'Angelo and two new board members that he also had a big hand in choosing. And say what you want about Larry Summers, but he's not going to be either Sam's or even Microsoft's bitch.
- imjonse 3y ago
  I wonder what is the rationale for picking a seasoned politician and economist (influenced deregulation of US finance system, was friends with Epstein, had a few controversies listed there). Has the government also entered the chat so obviously?
  - choult 3y ago
    It probably means that they anticipate a need for dealing with the government in future, such as having a hand in regulation of their industry.
  - voster 3y ago
    They had congressman Will Hurd on the board before. Govt-adjacent people on non-profits are common for many reasons - understanding regulatory requirements, access to people, but also actual "good" reasons like the fact that many people who work close to the state genuinely have good intentions on social good (whether you agree with their interpretation of it or not)
- eviks 3y ago
  What I'd want to say about Larry is that he is definitely not going to care about the whole-society non-profit shtick of the company to any degree comparable with the previous board members, so he won't constraint Sam/MS in any way

jatins 3y ago

> He was even trying to depose board members who were openly critical of open AI's practices. Was there any concrete criticism in the paper that was written by that board member? (Genuinely asking, not a leading question)

moonsu 3y ago

> The truth is before this Sam was basically running circles around the board and doing whatever he wanted on the profit side- that's what was pissing them off so much in the first place. He was even trying to depose board members who were openly critical of open AI's practices. Do you have a source for this?

kmlevitt 3y ago
New York Times. He was "reprimanding" Toner, a board member, for writing an article critical of open AI. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/21/technology/openai-altman-board-fight.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/21/technology/openai-altman-... Getting his way: The Wall Street Journal article. They said he usually got his way, but that he was so skillful at it that they were hard-pressed to explain exactly how he managed to pull it off. https://archive.is/20231122033417/https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/altman-firing-openai-520a3a8c#selection-1249.131-1249.333 https://archive.is/20231122033417/https://www.wsj.com/tech/a... Bottom line he had a lot more power over the board then than he will now.

cyanydeez 3y ago

Eh, Larry Summers is on this board. That means they're now going to protect business interests. OpenAI is now just a tool used by Businesses. And they dont have a good history of benefitting humanity recently.

kofejnik 3y ago
Larry Summers is EA and State, so not so sure about business interests

nashashmi 3y ago

Media >= employees? Media >= Sam? I don't think media has any role on oversight or governance. I think Sam came out the winner. He gets to pick his board. He gets to narrow his employees. If anything, this sets him up for dictatorship. The only other overseers are the investors. In that case, Microsoft came out holding a leash. No MS, means no Sam, which also means employees have no say. So it is more like MS > Sam > employees. MS+Sam > rest of investors.