3 ms·

Sam Altman: I recognize that during this process some questions were raised about Adam’s potential conflict of interest running Quora and Poe while being on th

Sam Altman: I recognize that during this process some questions were raised about Adam’s potential conflict of interest running Quora and Poe while being on the OpenAI Board. For the record, I want to state that Adam has always been very clear with me and the Board about the potential conflict and doing whatever he needed to do (recusing himself when appropriate and even offering to leave the Board if we ever thought it was necessary) to appropriately manage this situation and to avoid conflicted decision-making. Quora is a large customer of OpenAI and we found it helpful to have customer representation on our Board. We expect that if OpenAI is as successful as we hope it will touch many parts of the economy and have complex relationships with many other entities in the world, resulting in various potential conflicts of interest. The way we plan to deal with this is with full disclosure and leaving decisions about how to manage situations like these up to the Board. [1] The best interests of the company and the mission always come first. It is clear that there were real misunderstandings between me and members of the board. For my part, it is incredibly important to learn from this experience and apply those learnings as we move forward as a company. I welcome the board’s independent review of all recent events. I am thankful to Helen and Tasha for their contributions to the strength of OpenAI. [2] [1] - https://twitter.com/sama/status/1730032994474475554 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1730032994474475554 [2] - https://twitter.com/sama/status/1730033079975366839 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1730033079975366839

jacquesm 3y ago
That doesn't equate to having 'customer representation' that equates to 'Quora representation'. Customers are represented by a voice-of-the-customer board where many customers, large and small can be represented who then vote for a representative to the board. The board of the non-profit having a for-profit customer (and a large one at that) as a board member makes zero sense, that's just one more end-run around 'the mission' for whatever that was ever worth. The kind of bullshit that comes out during times like this is more than a little bit annoying, it's clear that if there is a conflict of interest it should be addressed in a far more direct way and whitewashes like this raise more questions than they answer. Such as: what was Adam's real role during all of this and how does it related to his future role at the board, as well as how much cover was negotiated to allow Adam to stay on as token sign of continuity.
- stingraycharles 3y ago
  I don’t think they necessarily owe the public an explanation, and I’m fairly sure that privately everyone that needs to know, already knows.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    You don't think that as a non-profit, the public is owed and explanation? As the public, we exempt them from taxes that everyone else has to pay, because we acknowledge that nonprofit is in the interest of people. I think they do owe us an explanation. If they were a private for-profit company, I would probably feel differently, but given their non-profit status, and the fact that their mission is explicitly to serve humanity with AI that they worry could destroy the race or the planet for more, I think they owe us an explanation.
    - 627467 3y ago
      I'm sure the law specifies what the public is owed. And if not, I'm sure there's plenty reason to test this in court.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Actually, their statements are overflowing from bits and pieces of how they are doing this 'for all of humanity' so I'm not so sure about that. Think about it this way: if in the 1940's nuclear weapons were being developed in private hands don't you think the entity behind that would owe the public - or the government - some insight into what is going on?
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      Think about it this way: if in the 1940's nuclear weapons were being developed in private hands don't you think the entity behind that would owe the public - or the government - some insight into what is going on? I'd read the hell out of that alt-history novel, I can tell you that much. Not so much the "Manhattan Project" as the "Tuxedo Park Project."
Grae 3y ago
This line is really interesting: > The best interests of the company and the mission always come first. That is absolutely not true for the nonprofit inc. The mission comes first. Full stop. The company (LLC) is a means to that end. Very interested to see how this governance situation continues to change.
- jprete 3y ago
  There's absolutely no sense in talking about OpenAI as a nonprofit at this point. The new board and Altman talk about the governance structure changing, and I strongly believe they will maximize their ability to run it as a for-profit company. 100x profit cap is a very large number on an $80 billion valuation.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    There never was. But they successfully planted the seeds to make people think it is that way.
  - didibus 3y ago
    Ya, it's a joke at this point. Better they just kill the non-profit and stop pretending.
    - krick 3y ago
      Surely they don't do it without a reason. And I don't know what the reason is, but I must assume it's some financial benefit (read, tax evasion), and not our opinion.
    - crazydoggers 3y ago
      But then they’d have to pay taxes, and all those corporations don’t get the juicy tax detections for “donating” to AI tech that will massively increase their profits.
    - bmitc 3y ago
      Why doesn't the government do it for them, fining them along the way?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sberens 3y ago
https://nitter.net/sama/status/1730033079975366839 https://nitter.net/sama/status/1730033079975366839
kappi 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jacquesm 3y ago

That doesn't equate to having 'customer representation' that equates to 'Quora representation'. Customers are represented by a voice-of-the-customer board where many customers, large and small can be represented who then vote for a representative to the board. The board of the non-profit having a for-profit customer (and a large one at that) as a board member makes zero sense, that's just one more end-run around 'the mission' for whatever that was ever worth. The kind of bullshit that comes out during times like this is more than a little bit annoying, it's clear that if there is a conflict of interest it should be addressed in a far more direct way and whitewashes like this raise more questions than they answer. Such as: what was Adam's real role during all of this and how does it related to his future role at the board, as well as how much cover was negotiated to allow Adam to stay on as token sign of continuity.

stingraycharles 3y ago
I don’t think they necessarily owe the public an explanation, and I’m fairly sure that privately everyone that needs to know, already knows.
- freedomben 3y ago
  You don't think that as a non-profit, the public is owed and explanation? As the public, we exempt them from taxes that everyone else has to pay, because we acknowledge that nonprofit is in the interest of people. I think they do owe us an explanation. If they were a private for-profit company, I would probably feel differently, but given their non-profit status, and the fact that their mission is explicitly to serve humanity with AI that they worry could destroy the race or the planet for more, I think they owe us an explanation.
  - 627467 3y ago
    I'm sure the law specifies what the public is owed. And if not, I'm sure there's plenty reason to test this in court.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Actually, their statements are overflowing from bits and pieces of how they are doing this 'for all of humanity' so I'm not so sure about that. Think about it this way: if in the 1940's nuclear weapons were being developed in private hands don't you think the entity behind that would owe the public - or the government - some insight into what is going on?
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    Think about it this way: if in the 1940's nuclear weapons were being developed in private hands don't you think the entity behind that would owe the public - or the government - some insight into what is going on? I'd read the hell out of that alt-history novel, I can tell you that much. Not so much the "Manhattan Project" as the "Tuxedo Park Project."

Grae 3y ago

This line is really interesting: > The best interests of the company and the mission always come first. That is absolutely not true for the nonprofit inc. The mission comes first. Full stop. The company (LLC) is a means to that end. Very interested to see how this governance situation continues to change.

jprete 3y ago
There's absolutely no sense in talking about OpenAI as a nonprofit at this point. The new board and Altman talk about the governance structure changing, and I strongly believe they will maximize their ability to run it as a for-profit company. 100x profit cap is a very large number on an $80 billion valuation.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  There never was. But they successfully planted the seeds to make people think it is that way.
- didibus 3y ago
  Ya, it's a joke at this point. Better they just kill the non-profit and stop pretending.
  - krick 3y ago
    Surely they don't do it without a reason. And I don't know what the reason is, but I must assume it's some financial benefit (read, tax evasion), and not our opinion.
  - crazydoggers 3y ago
    But then they’d have to pay taxes, and all those corporations don’t get the juicy tax detections for “donating” to AI tech that will massively increase their profits.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    Why doesn't the government do it for them, fining them along the way?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sberens 3y ago

https://nitter.net/sama/status/1730033079975366839 https://nitter.net/sama/status/1730033079975366839

kappi 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]