3 ms·

> They could have filed formal complaints, mandated increased scrutiny, handed off Sam's responsibilities to other people, or threatened legal action. I think

> They could have filed formal complaints, mandated increased scrutiny, handed off Sam's responsibilities to other people, or threatened legal action. I think you fundamentally misunderstand the role of the board of directors. It's often been said that the board (of any company) has basically one job: to hire (and fire) the CEO. While that may be a slight exaggeration, the wisdom behind that quote is that things turn out badly when the board meddles in decisions of a company's executive leadership - if they don't like the decisions being made, they should replace the CEO, and that's where their power lies. You talk about "filing formal complaints" - what does this even mean?? They're the board, who else would they file formal complaints to? "Hand off Sam's responsibilities to other people"?? Again, any corporate governance expert would say that's a recipe for disaster, never mind not even feasible the way corporate hierarchies work. I've commented many times before that I think the way the board handled the Altman's filing was, at best, woefully naive, and their communication at the time (even after he was fired) abysmal. But neither do I think it was some sort of "coup", and your recommendations simply don't make sense.

GeorgeTirebiter 2y ago
This precisely correct. The board hires & fires the CEO. End of story. When the board is unhappy how the company is being run, their recourse is to...fire the CEO. What is unusual here is the wellspring of support from "the troops", such that if they stuck with their firing the CEO, there would be hardly any company left to be BoD of! The board didn't understand the depth of employee allegiance to sama.
- jprete 2y ago
  I saw a claim at the time that a handful of employees rallied everyone else to sign the letter and post support on Twitter. Between that and Altman reportedly having a vindictive streak, I'm thinking the actual employee support was paper-thin.
  - Rastonbury 2y ago
    Prisoner's dilemma and/or social pressure when million in profit share units hang in the balance. Joining MS was a way to stop their compensation being at risk by being stuck on a sinking ship
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
Aunche 2y ago
> the board (of any company) has basically one job: to hire (and fire) the CEO Yes. In a formal board meeting, not in an secretive one behind Altman and Brockman's back. That's what makes it seem more like a coup. > They're the board, who else would they file formal complaints to? Like I said in other comments. It's always useful to have a paper trail. > "Hand off Sam's responsibilities to other people"?? Again, any corporate governance expert would say that's a recipe for disaster, never mind not even feasible the way corporate hierarchies work. If Altman is neglecting and being opaque about AI safety, as Toner claims, then the board should appoint someone to lead this effort and be fully transparent with them. I don't see how this is so far fetched.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  > If Altman is neglecting and being opaque about AI safety, as Toner claims, then the board should appoint someone to lead this effort and be fully transparent with them. No, that is absolutely not the role of the board (and I mean any board, not just OpenAI's), and that's the point I was trying to make. It is the CEO's role to define the org structure of the company. If the board feels that this structure doesn't meet their corporate goals, they don't go in and say "No, actually, we demand you create this AI safety group with a separate head that reports directly to us." Their option is instead to fire the current CEO and hire a different one who they believe is more aligned with their values.
  - Aunche 2y ago
    It's not typical for the board to directly intervene with the affairs for the company, but it's still far less unprecedented than making the most important decision in their history while deliberately excluding a third of the members. For example, a year before Yahoo fired Marissa Mayer, the board appointed a committee to explore "strategic alternatives" with management. https://www.businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-yahoo-meeting-daily-about-a-sale-2016-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-yahoo-meeting-...
    - Gud 2y ago

GeorgeTirebiter 2y ago

This precisely correct. The board hires & fires the CEO. End of story. When the board is unhappy how the company is being run, their recourse is to...fire the CEO. What is unusual here is the wellspring of support from "the troops", such that if they stuck with their firing the CEO, there would be hardly any company left to be BoD of! The board didn't understand the depth of employee allegiance to sama.

jprete 2y ago
I saw a claim at the time that a handful of employees rallied everyone else to sign the letter and post support on Twitter. Between that and Altman reportedly having a vindictive streak, I'm thinking the actual employee support was paper-thin.
- Rastonbury 2y ago
  Prisoner's dilemma and/or social pressure when million in profit share units hang in the balance. Joining MS was a way to stop their compensation being at risk by being stuck on a sinking ship
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

Aunche 2y ago

> the board (of any company) has basically one job: to hire (and fire) the CEO Yes. In a formal board meeting, not in an secretive one behind Altman and Brockman's back. That's what makes it seem more like a coup. > They're the board, who else would they file formal complaints to? Like I said in other comments. It's always useful to have a paper trail. > "Hand off Sam's responsibilities to other people"?? Again, any corporate governance expert would say that's a recipe for disaster, never mind not even feasible the way corporate hierarchies work. If Altman is neglecting and being opaque about AI safety, as Toner claims, then the board should appoint someone to lead this effort and be fully transparent with them. I don't see how this is so far fetched.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
> If Altman is neglecting and being opaque about AI safety, as Toner claims, then the board should appoint someone to lead this effort and be fully transparent with them. No, that is absolutely not the role of the board (and I mean any board, not just OpenAI's), and that's the point I was trying to make. It is the CEO's role to define the org structure of the company. If the board feels that this structure doesn't meet their corporate goals, they don't go in and say "No, actually, we demand you create this AI safety group with a separate head that reports directly to us." Their option is instead to fire the current CEO and hire a different one who they believe is more aligned with their values.
- Aunche 2y ago
  It's not typical for the board to directly intervene with the affairs for the company, but it's still far less unprecedented than making the most important decision in their history while deliberately excluding a third of the members. For example, a year before Yahoo fired Marissa Mayer, the board appointed a committee to explore "strategic alternatives" with management. https://www.businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-yahoo-meeting-daily-about-a-sale-2016-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-yahoo-meeting-...
  - Gud 2y ago