3 ms·

> 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 Brockm

by 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
    Which is absolutely different than changing the corporate structure. What the Yahoo Board was doing was essentially bringing in their own set of advisers.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    As the other comment said, the strategic alternatives plan had nothing to do with firing Mayer. It was specifically about how they could unload their Alibaba equity without triggering a huge tax bill. But regardless, the board had six members. Altman was actively trying to grow the board (and would presumably add loyal allies), and had previously tried to kick Toner off the board. So just by sheer numbers it's obvious they had to move quietly before they acted. And you saying this is "unprecedented" is just weird - CEOs are fired with little warning all the time, and if they also have board seats, the board members who want to fire them usually figure out if they have enough support before hand. I think the thing we're probably agreeing on is that the board just handled the communication abysmally. I don't know how they thought they could fire Altman without a detailed explanation, especially to their partners like MS.
harrcliff0410 2y ago
[dead]

by Aunche 2y ago

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
  Which is absolutely different than changing the corporate structure. What the Yahoo Board was doing was essentially bringing in their own set of advisers.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  As the other comment said, the strategic alternatives plan had nothing to do with firing Mayer. It was specifically about how they could unload their Alibaba equity without triggering a huge tax bill. But regardless, the board had six members. Altman was actively trying to grow the board (and would presumably add loyal allies), and had previously tried to kick Toner off the board. So just by sheer numbers it's obvious they had to move quietly before they acted. And you saying this is "unprecedented" is just weird - CEOs are fired with little warning all the time, and if they also have board seats, the board members who want to fire them usually figure out if they have enough support before hand. I think the thing we're probably agreeing on is that the board just handled the communication abysmally. I don't know how they thought they could fire Altman without a detailed explanation, especially to their partners like MS.

harrcliff0410 2y ago

[dead]