5 ms·

Imagine if the board of Apple fired Tim Cook with no warning right after he went on stage and announced their new developer platform updates for the year alongs

Imagine if the board of Apple fired Tim Cook with no warning right after he went on stage and announced their new developer platform updates for the year alongside record growth and sales, refused to elaborate as to the reasons or provide any useful communications to investors over several days, and replaced their first interim CEO with another interim CEO from a completely different kind of business in that same weekend. If you don't think there would be a shareholder revolt against the board, for simply exercising their most fundamental right to fire the CEO, I think you're missing part the picture.

hackernewds 3y ago
It is prudent to recall that enhancing shareholder value and delivering record growth and sales are NOT the mission of the company or Board. But now it appears that it will have to be.
- ketzo 3y ago
  Yeah, but they also didn't elaborate in the slightest about how they were serving the charter with their actions. If they were super-duper worried about how Sam was going to cause a global extinction event with AI, or even just that he was driving the company in too commercial of a direction, they should have said that to everyone! The idea that they could fire the CEO with a super vague, one-paragraph statement, and then expect 800 employees who respect that CEO to just... be totally fine with that is absolutely fucking insane, regardless of the board's fiduciary responsibilities. They're board members, not gods.
  - NanoYohaneTSU 3y ago
    They don't have to elaborate. As many have pointed out, most people have been given advice to not say anything at all when SHTF. If they did say something there would still be drama. It's best to keep these details internal. I still believe in the theory that Altman was going hard after profits. Both McCauley and Toner are focused on the altruistic aspects of AGI and safety. Altman shouldn't be at OpenAI and neither should D’Angelo.
    - ketzo 3y ago
      Okay, keep silent to save your own ass, fine But why would anyone expect 800 people to risk their livelihoods and work without a little serious justification? This was an inevitable reaction.
      - murakamiiq84 3y ago
        I think it's important to keep in mind that BOTH Altman and the board maneuvered to threaten to destroy OpenAI. If Altman was silent and/or said something like "people take some time off for Thanksgiving, in a week calmer minds will prevail" while negotiating behind the scenes, OpenAI would look a lot less dire in the last few days. Instead he launched a public pressure campaign, likely pressured Mira, got Satya to make some fake commitments, got Greg Bockman's wife to emotionally pressure Ilya, etc. Masterful chess, clearly. But playing people like pieces nonetheless.
        paulddraper 3y ago
        Why couldn't those people have acted on their own judgement?
    - stetrain 3y ago
      > They don't have to elaborate. Sure, they don't have to. How did that work out? Four CEOs in five days, their largest partner stepping in to try to stop the chaos, and almost the entirety of their employees threatening to leave for guaranteed jobs at that partner if the board didn't step down.
- stetrain 3y ago
  Sure, there is a difference there. But the actions that erode confidence are the same. You could tell the same story about a rising sports team replacing their star coach, or a military sacking a general the day after he marched through the streets to fanfare after winning a battle. Even without the money involved, a sudden change in leadership with no explanation, followed only by increasing uncertainty and cloudy communication, is not going to go well for those who are backing you. Even in the most altruistic version of OpenAI's goals I'm fairly sure they need employees and funding to pay those employees and do the research.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  > enhancing shareholder value and delivering record growth and sales are NOT the mission of the company Developer platform updates seem to be inline. And in any case, the board also failed to specify how their action furthered the mission of the company. From all appearances, it appeared to damage the mission of the company. (If for no other reason that it dissolve the company and gave everything to MSFT.)
thepasswordis 3y ago
[flagged]
- idontknowifican 3y ago
  can we stop calling a university trained prior executive that made her way prior to her marriage, simply the wife of an actor? i know it is fun to deride people, but i suspect Tasha has done more and gone further in her life than you will, and your tone indicates anger at this
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    Yeah I agree. Reducing an accomplished woman down to “wife of someone” is super sexist.
  - thepasswordis 3y ago
    >I suspect Tasha has done more and gone further in her life than you will, and your tone indicates anger at this. Well this sure seems unnecessary. I’m saying this because I googled her name when this happened, and the only articles I could find referenced her husband. I wasn’t seeing any of this work you’re talking about, at least not anything that would seem relevant. Can you link to some stuff? Here’s a TechCrunch article that tries to go into the history of the OAI board, and doesn’t really have any information either: https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/21/a-brief-look-at-the-history-of-openais-board/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/21/a-brief-look-at-the-histor... Btw, I think “university trained prior executive” describes not just me but almost every single person on HN. “Involved in a non profit related to their work” I suspect also describes me and probably >90% of people posting on HN. And also; maybe you haven’t been involved in non profit boards? “Spouse of famous/rich/etc” person is an extremely common reason to put somebody on a board for a practical reason: it helps with fundraising and exposure.
    - LegibleCrimson 3y ago
      [flagged]
jacquesm 3y ago
You forgot: and offered the company for a bag of peanuts to Microsoft.
eksapsy 3y ago
no but the people like the developers, clients, government etc. have also the right to exercise their revolt against decisions they don't like as well. don't you think? like, you get me, the board of directors is not the only actual power within a company, and that was proven by the whole scandal of Sam being discarded/fired that was made by the developers themselves. they also have the right to exercise their right to just not work at this company without the leader they may had liked.
- stetrain 3y ago
  Right. I really should have said employees and investors. Even if OpenAI somehow had no regard for its investors, they still need their employees to accomplish their mission. And funding to pay those employees. The board seemed to have the confidence of none of the groups they needed confidence from.

hackernewds 3y ago

It is prudent to recall that enhancing shareholder value and delivering record growth and sales are NOT the mission of the company or Board. But now it appears that it will have to be.

ketzo 3y ago
Yeah, but they also didn't elaborate in the slightest about how they were serving the charter with their actions. If they were super-duper worried about how Sam was going to cause a global extinction event with AI, or even just that he was driving the company in too commercial of a direction, they should have said that to everyone! The idea that they could fire the CEO with a super vague, one-paragraph statement, and then expect 800 employees who respect that CEO to just... be totally fine with that is absolutely fucking insane, regardless of the board's fiduciary responsibilities. They're board members, not gods.
- NanoYohaneTSU 3y ago
  They don't have to elaborate. As many have pointed out, most people have been given advice to not say anything at all when SHTF. If they did say something there would still be drama. It's best to keep these details internal. I still believe in the theory that Altman was going hard after profits. Both McCauley and Toner are focused on the altruistic aspects of AGI and safety. Altman shouldn't be at OpenAI and neither should D’Angelo.
  - ketzo 3y ago
    Okay, keep silent to save your own ass, fine But why would anyone expect 800 people to risk their livelihoods and work without a little serious justification? This was an inevitable reaction.
    - murakamiiq84 3y ago
      I think it's important to keep in mind that BOTH Altman and the board maneuvered to threaten to destroy OpenAI. If Altman was silent and/or said something like "people take some time off for Thanksgiving, in a week calmer minds will prevail" while negotiating behind the scenes, OpenAI would look a lot less dire in the last few days. Instead he launched a public pressure campaign, likely pressured Mira, got Satya to make some fake commitments, got Greg Bockman's wife to emotionally pressure Ilya, etc. Masterful chess, clearly. But playing people like pieces nonetheless.
      - paulddraper 3y ago
        Why couldn't those people have acted on their own judgement?
  - stetrain 3y ago
    > They don't have to elaborate. Sure, they don't have to. How did that work out? Four CEOs in five days, their largest partner stepping in to try to stop the chaos, and almost the entirety of their employees threatening to leave for guaranteed jobs at that partner if the board didn't step down.
stetrain 3y ago
Sure, there is a difference there. But the actions that erode confidence are the same. You could tell the same story about a rising sports team replacing their star coach, or a military sacking a general the day after he marched through the streets to fanfare after winning a battle. Even without the money involved, a sudden change in leadership with no explanation, followed only by increasing uncertainty and cloudy communication, is not going to go well for those who are backing you. Even in the most altruistic version of OpenAI's goals I'm fairly sure they need employees and funding to pay those employees and do the research.
paulddraper 3y ago
> enhancing shareholder value and delivering record growth and sales are NOT the mission of the company Developer platform updates seem to be inline. And in any case, the board also failed to specify how their action furthered the mission of the company. From all appearances, it appeared to damage the mission of the company. (If for no other reason that it dissolve the company and gave everything to MSFT.)

thepasswordis 3y ago

[flagged]

idontknowifican 3y ago
can we stop calling a university trained prior executive that made her way prior to her marriage, simply the wife of an actor? i know it is fun to deride people, but i suspect Tasha has done more and gone further in her life than you will, and your tone indicates anger at this
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  Yeah I agree. Reducing an accomplished woman down to “wife of someone” is super sexist.
- thepasswordis 3y ago
  >I suspect Tasha has done more and gone further in her life than you will, and your tone indicates anger at this. Well this sure seems unnecessary. I’m saying this because I googled her name when this happened, and the only articles I could find referenced her husband. I wasn’t seeing any of this work you’re talking about, at least not anything that would seem relevant. Can you link to some stuff? Here’s a TechCrunch article that tries to go into the history of the OAI board, and doesn’t really have any information either: https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/21/a-brief-look-at-the-history-of-openais-board/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/21/a-brief-look-at-the-histor... Btw, I think “university trained prior executive” describes not just me but almost every single person on HN. “Involved in a non profit related to their work” I suspect also describes me and probably >90% of people posting on HN. And also; maybe you haven’t been involved in non profit boards? “Spouse of famous/rich/etc” person is an extremely common reason to put somebody on a board for a practical reason: it helps with fundraising and exposure.
  - LegibleCrimson 3y ago
    [flagged]

jacquesm 3y ago

You forgot: and offered the company for a bag of peanuts to Microsoft.

eksapsy 3y ago

no but the people like the developers, clients, government etc. have also the right to exercise their revolt against decisions they don't like as well. don't you think? like, you get me, the board of directors is not the only actual power within a company, and that was proven by the whole scandal of Sam being discarded/fired that was made by the developers themselves. they also have the right to exercise their right to just not work at this company without the leader they may had liked.

stetrain 3y ago
Right. I really should have said employees and investors. Even if OpenAI somehow had no regard for its investors, they still need their employees to accomplish their mission. And funding to pay those employees. The board seemed to have the confidence of none of the groups they needed confidence from.