2 ms·
The board had plenty of power. There was never a coherent explanation of its firing the CEO. But they could have stuck with that decision if they believed in
by paulddraper 1y ago
The board had plenty of power.
There was never a coherent explanation of its firing the CEO.
But they could have stuck with that decision if they believed in it.
- freejazz 1y agoThe question is not if they could, it is if they would.
- michaelt 1y agoThe explanation seemed pretty obvious to me: They set up a nonprofit to deliver an AI that was Open. Then things went unexpectedly well, people were valuing them at billions of dollars, and they suddenly decided they weren't open any more. Suddenly they were all about Altman's Interests Safety (AI Safety for short). The board tried to fulfil its obligation to get the nonprofit to do the things in its charter, and they were unsuccessful.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoThe explanation was pretty clear and coherent: The CEO was no longer adhering to the mission of the non-profit (which the board was upholding). But they found themselves alone in that it turns out the employees (who were employed by the for-profit company) and investors (MSFT in particular) didn't care about the mission and wanted to follow the money instead. So the board had no choice but to capitulate and leave.