4 ms·

The board should have called their bluff and let them walk.

by bmitc 3y ago

jgtrosh 3y ago
And then we'd witness the market decide whether the company value was provided by its board or its employees
- bmitc 3y ago
  It's a non-profit. It should have no value aside from the mission. The only reason the employees mobilized in their whining and support of a person, whose only skills seems to be raising money and cult of personality, seems to be so that Altman can complete the Trojan horse of the non-profit by getting rid of it now that it has completed the side quest of attracting investors and customers.
  - temp_praneshp 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - blackoil 3y ago
    Which owns a for profit. They would have been left with no employees, no money, no credits, and crown-jewels already licensed to another company. On top of that spending life in minority shareholders lawsuits.
  - IgorPartola 3y ago
    Does the Red Cross have value? Does Wikipedia? Does the Linux Foundation? I think you are confusing profits, valuations, market cap, and value.
  - yreg 3y ago
    How would giving everything to Microsoft help the mission? It would have been even worse mission-wise.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    > value aside from the mission. And you believe they could’ve achieved their mission with almost zero employees and presumably the board (well… who else?) having to do all the work themselves? > non-profit by getting rid of it So the solution of the board was to get rid of both the non-profit and for profit parts of the company?
    - justinclift 3y ago
      > And you believe they could’ve achieved their mission with almost zero employees ... It's not like they wouldn't be able to hire new employees. ;)
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
        And do what with them exactly? ; )
627467 3y ago
They could, or could they? Formally boards don't run companies. Would this scenario - besides ridiculous - be legal? Say they let 99% of the company walk. Who is qualified and responsible to do whatever needs to happened after that happens?
- anticensor 3y ago
  Some companies are chartered such that even the smallest outside spending requires a board vote.
  - 627467 3y ago
    Some are. The question is: is openAI? And even if they are, the outcome of this novela indicates it don't matter: the board folded.
nateburke 3y ago
I wonder if they ACTUALLY would have landed at Microsoft. And then, would they actually have their TC post tender met there? And would they continue working on AI for some time, independent of reorgs, etc? All of them? A place like MSFT has a TON of process and red tape, the board could have called their bluff and kept at least 40%.
- behringer 3y ago
  And they would have given MS the 60 percent of their employees more interested in politics than anything else.
willis936 3y ago
What would that have accomplished? The old board members would still be in charge of the same thing they are today: absolutely nothing. They overplayed their position. That's all there is to it.
- enraged_camel 3y ago
  >> They overplayed their position. That's all there is to it. They tried to enforce the non-profit's charter, as is their duty. I would hardly frame that as overplaying their hand.
  - willis936 3y ago
    That's one interpretation, and I'm sure it is the one they had. In my opinion they failed to enforce the charter. Had they been effective at enforcing the charter they would have not folded all of their power to someone they view does not enforce the charter. There is nothing they could have done to fail more.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
      >Had they been effective at enforcing the charter they would have not folded all of their power to someone they view does not enforce the charter. There is nothing they could have done to fail more. How specifically do you suggest they should have "not folded all of their power"? Are you saying they should have stuck to their guns when it came to firing Sam? In any case, it's not obvious to me that the board actually lost the showdown. Remember, they ignored multiple "deadlines" from OpenAI employees threatening to quit, and the new board doesn't have Sam or Greg on it -- it seems to be genuinely independent. Lots of people were speculating that Sam would gain complete control of the board as an outcome of this. I don't think that happened. Some are saying that the new board has zero leverage to fire the CEO at this point, since Sam showed us what he can do. However, the new board says they are doing an independent investigation into this incident. So they have the power to issue a press release, at least. And that press release could make a big difference -- to the SEC and other federal regulators, for example.
itchyouch 3y ago
There was nothing to bluff. The employees would've been hired by Microsoft and OpenAI the company would've had nothing but sourcecode and some infrastructure. They would've gone down quickly.
monkeywork 3y ago
Please explain why you think they should have let them walk and what benefit to either OpenAI or any of it's partners / customers there would have been in doing so? It feels like you are saying this out of spite rather than with a good reason - but I'm open to listen if you have one.

The board should have called their bluff and let them walk.

by bmitc 3y ago

The board should have called their bluff and let them walk.

jgtrosh 3y ago

And then we'd witness the market decide whether the company value was provided by its board or its employees

bmitc 3y ago
It's a non-profit. It should have no value aside from the mission. The only reason the employees mobilized in their whining and support of a person, whose only skills seems to be raising money and cult of personality, seems to be so that Altman can complete the Trojan horse of the non-profit by getting rid of it now that it has completed the side quest of attracting investors and customers.
- temp_praneshp 3y ago
  [flagged]
- blackoil 3y ago
  Which owns a for profit. They would have been left with no employees, no money, no credits, and crown-jewels already licensed to another company. On top of that spending life in minority shareholders lawsuits.
- IgorPartola 3y ago
  Does the Red Cross have value? Does Wikipedia? Does the Linux Foundation? I think you are confusing profits, valuations, market cap, and value.
- yreg 3y ago
  How would giving everything to Microsoft help the mission? It would have been even worse mission-wise.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > value aside from the mission. And you believe they could’ve achieved their mission with almost zero employees and presumably the board (well… who else?) having to do all the work themselves? > non-profit by getting rid of it So the solution of the board was to get rid of both the non-profit and for profit parts of the company?
  - justinclift 3y ago
    > And you believe they could’ve achieved their mission with almost zero employees ... It's not like they wouldn't be able to hire new employees. ;)
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      And do what with them exactly? ; )

627467 3y ago

They could, or could they? Formally boards don't run companies. Would this scenario - besides ridiculous - be legal? Say they let 99% of the company walk. Who is qualified and responsible to do whatever needs to happened after that happens?

anticensor 3y ago
Some companies are chartered such that even the smallest outside spending requires a board vote.
- 627467 3y ago
  Some are. The question is: is openAI? And even if they are, the outcome of this novela indicates it don't matter: the board folded.

nateburke 3y ago

I wonder if they ACTUALLY would have landed at Microsoft. And then, would they actually have their TC post tender met there? And would they continue working on AI for some time, independent of reorgs, etc? All of them? A place like MSFT has a TON of process and red tape, the board could have called their bluff and kept at least 40%.

behringer 3y ago
And they would have given MS the 60 percent of their employees more interested in politics than anything else.

willis936 3y ago

What would that have accomplished? The old board members would still be in charge of the same thing they are today: absolutely nothing. They overplayed their position. That's all there is to it.

enraged_camel 3y ago
>> They overplayed their position. That's all there is to it. They tried to enforce the non-profit's charter, as is their duty. I would hardly frame that as overplaying their hand.
- willis936 3y ago
  That's one interpretation, and I'm sure it is the one they had. In my opinion they failed to enforce the charter. Had they been effective at enforcing the charter they would have not folded all of their power to someone they view does not enforce the charter. There is nothing they could have done to fail more.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
    >Had they been effective at enforcing the charter they would have not folded all of their power to someone they view does not enforce the charter. There is nothing they could have done to fail more. How specifically do you suggest they should have "not folded all of their power"? Are you saying they should have stuck to their guns when it came to firing Sam? In any case, it's not obvious to me that the board actually lost the showdown. Remember, they ignored multiple "deadlines" from OpenAI employees threatening to quit, and the new board doesn't have Sam or Greg on it -- it seems to be genuinely independent. Lots of people were speculating that Sam would gain complete control of the board as an outcome of this. I don't think that happened. Some are saying that the new board has zero leverage to fire the CEO at this point, since Sam showed us what he can do. However, the new board says they are doing an independent investigation into this incident. So they have the power to issue a press release, at least. And that press release could make a big difference -- to the SEC and other federal regulators, for example.

itchyouch 3y ago

There was nothing to bluff. The employees would've been hired by Microsoft and OpenAI the company would've had nothing but sourcecode and some infrastructure. They would've gone down quickly.

monkeywork 3y ago

Please explain why you think they should have let them walk and what benefit to either OpenAI or any of it's partners / customers there would have been in doing so? It feels like you are saying this out of spite rather than with a good reason - but I'm open to listen if you have one.