3 ms·

Telling almost no one in advance was intended to protect the board from Altman's interference but put them in an indefensible situation. Alone against very rich

Telling almost no one in advance was intended to protect the board from Altman's interference but put them in an indefensible situation. Alone against very rich, well connected people, without even a narrative to offer.

kyrra 2y ago
I think this is the big thing, they did this and were unable to publicly explain why they did it. If you are going to do something like this, you should have your ducks in a row and be ready to defend it.
jfoster 2y ago
It feels like one press release may have changed the outcome entirely. Shouldn't the board be capable of agreeing on a press release among themselves?
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Totally agree. The initial press release made it sound like Altman was guilty of borderline illegal malfeasance, which wasn't true. Without any more information, the world was left to speculate about what happened, and it came across to many as more of a "power struggle" or grudge match than fundamental concerns about the direction of OpenAI. While in retrospect I think the board's actions may have been warranted, their communication was absolutely atrocious.
  - rl3 2y ago
    >Totally agree. The initial press release made it sound like Altman was guilty of borderline illegal malfeasance, which wasn't true. This sounds bad enough to my layperson ears: "Sam didn't inform the board that he owned the OpenAI startup fund, even though he constantly was claiming to be an independent board member with no financial interest in the company," she said. I'm not a lawyer. Anyone with expertise care to clarify? Also, wow: https://medium.com/@leagueplayer220/sam-altman-may-have-committed-fraud-at-loopt-could-the-openai-firing-be-a-similar-incident-fe316d4900e7 https://medium.com/@leagueplayer220/sam-altman-may-have-comm...
- mindslight 2y ago
  Bingo. I think the public conversation would have gone much differently if the board had laid out how Altman's behavior was essentially making OpenAI LLC ungovernable per OpenAI-the-nonprofit's charter. Presumably that public understanding was leading much of the thoughts around employees signing the open letter demanding reinstatement of Altman. I'd guess the board relied on some generally-bad legal advice from their attorneys about how they could get personally sued for libel for airing dirty laundry etc. Not having huge financial stakes, and seemingly having been picked for being conservative rather than risk takers, they followed this to their detriment. Staying quiet let Altman build a following and lead the whole situation, something Altman is seemingly fantastic at doing. So ultimately what was a pivotal moment in governance of following the nonprofit charter, played quite poorly, ended up being a coup by Altman to escape that one layer of "boxing". Which given how poorly we've done so far at "aligning" centralized capitalism to the needs of most individuals (of which this seems to be a subproblem) wasn't terribly surprising!

kyrra 2y ago

I think this is the big thing, they did this and were unable to publicly explain why they did it. If you are going to do something like this, you should have your ducks in a row and be ready to defend it.

jfoster 2y ago

It feels like one press release may have changed the outcome entirely. Shouldn't the board be capable of agreeing on a press release among themselves?

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Totally agree. The initial press release made it sound like Altman was guilty of borderline illegal malfeasance, which wasn't true. Without any more information, the world was left to speculate about what happened, and it came across to many as more of a "power struggle" or grudge match than fundamental concerns about the direction of OpenAI. While in retrospect I think the board's actions may have been warranted, their communication was absolutely atrocious.
- rl3 2y ago
  >Totally agree. The initial press release made it sound like Altman was guilty of borderline illegal malfeasance, which wasn't true. This sounds bad enough to my layperson ears: "Sam didn't inform the board that he owned the OpenAI startup fund, even though he constantly was claiming to be an independent board member with no financial interest in the company," she said. I'm not a lawyer. Anyone with expertise care to clarify? Also, wow: https://medium.com/@leagueplayer220/sam-altman-may-have-committed-fraud-at-loopt-could-the-openai-firing-be-a-similar-incident-fe316d4900e7 https://medium.com/@leagueplayer220/sam-altman-may-have-comm...
mindslight 2y ago
Bingo. I think the public conversation would have gone much differently if the board had laid out how Altman's behavior was essentially making OpenAI LLC ungovernable per OpenAI-the-nonprofit's charter. Presumably that public understanding was leading much of the thoughts around employees signing the open letter demanding reinstatement of Altman. I'd guess the board relied on some generally-bad legal advice from their attorneys about how they could get personally sued for libel for airing dirty laundry etc. Not having huge financial stakes, and seemingly having been picked for being conservative rather than risk takers, they followed this to their detriment. Staying quiet let Altman build a following and lead the whole situation, something Altman is seemingly fantastic at doing. So ultimately what was a pivotal moment in governance of following the nonprofit charter, played quite poorly, ended up being a coup by Altman to escape that one layer of "boxing". Which given how poorly we've done so far at "aligning" centralized capitalism to the needs of most individuals (of which this seems to be a subproblem) wasn't terribly surprising!