himaraya

7 ms·

31.
by himaraya 3y ago
Source? Ben didn't read his cited source in his article yesterday.
32.
by himaraya 3y ago
> What Bloomberg Intelligence Says "A potential return of Sam Altman as OpenAI’s CEO will likely strengthen Microsoft’s strategic positioning, especially if it’s able to procure a seat on the new board. This could also be the prefer
33.
by himaraya 3y ago
Regardless, unless discovery finds a smoking gun that the board acted in bad faith vis a vis the charter, which nothing public indicates, a judge would likely tell investors to pound sand.
34.
by himaraya 3y ago
I think that argument fares even worse. The board only needs to prove to a judge they believed firing Sam would benefit the charter, and the leaks from their camp have stated as much. The board has deliberately stayed silent to avoid legal
35.
by himaraya 3y ago
Harming investors in order to uphold the nonprofit charter sounds more reasonable than you suggest. Take it from Matt Levine. I don't think investors would win this line of argument. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion&#x
36.
by himaraya 3y ago
The nonprofit board holds no fiduciary duty to for-profit investors, big or small. In theory, I suppose you could sue the board over undermining the charter but that seems tricky itself, this case aside.
37.
by himaraya 3y ago
I really don't think investors have the case you think they do. They may ultimately pin the board on some technicality but the case looks far from straightforward. Anyways, it looks like Sam has finally started talking with the board a
38.
by himaraya 3y ago
They can iterate off ChatGPT but don't own the underlying IP?
39.
by himaraya 3y ago
OpenAI isn't Big Tech? Adam could reasonably argue his interest in Poe doesn't conflict with the nonprofit charter. Sam & Greg saw fit to leave him in place. Uncommunicative boards remain less unusual than you think, unfortuna
40.
by himaraya 3y ago
Why? The nonprofit will certainly continue existing in name, if nothing else.
41.
by himaraya 3y ago
He doesn't cite any sources either. The contract details remain murky.
42.
by himaraya 3y ago
OpenAI's lawyers? Big tech passes everything through legal anyways.
43.
by himaraya 3y ago
The cited source indicates otherwise, that the license comes with restrictions. Ben didn't read the article. https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-and-openai-forge-awkw...
44.
Binance founder Changpeng Zhao agrees to step down, plead guilty(wsj.com)
654 points by himaraya 3y ago|462 comments
45.
by himaraya 3y ago
Shareholders check the power of corporate boards, unlike nonprofit ones, so not a surprise.
46.
by himaraya 3y ago
To reassure investors? He just made the rounds on TV yesterday for this explicit reason. He told Kara Swisher Microsoft has the rights to innovate, not just serve the product, which sounds somewhat close.
47.
OpenAI in 'Intense Discussions' to Unify Company, Memo Says(bloomberg.com)
13 points by himaraya 3y ago|4 comments
48.
by himaraya 3y ago
The nature of those rights to OpenAI's IP remains the sticking point. That paragraph largely seems to concern commercializing existing tech, which lines up with existing disclosures. I suspect Satya would come out and say Microsoft own
49.
by himaraya 3y ago
The fact that Sam and the employees have waged this PR campaign suggests the board still sits on something of value. I guess we'll see who flinches first. OpenAI gave up 49% equity because they thought Microsoft gave a fair valuation a
50.
by himaraya 3y ago
Timestamp for "improve upon the existing tech"? I only heard him say they have rights up and down the stack, which sounds different.
51.
by himaraya 3y ago
First, I meant people would've already jumped ship to Microsoft en masse without bothering with the OpenAI board fiasco if Microsoft truly held all the cards. I suspect they do not. Second, I meant the OpenAI that signed the initial ag
52.
by himaraya 3y ago
Hence the need for strict governance. I can't think of another board with so many board seats empty, to say nothing about conflicts of interest.
53.
by himaraya 3y ago
The board likely thinks the IP gives them leverage to attract talent after the drama subsides. Otherwise, they may very well go for broke.
54.
by himaraya 3y ago
Not Microsoft? Otherwise people would've jumped ship long ago. None of this letter writing and PR campaign. The smaller OpenAI that signed the Microsoft agreement had plenty of sustenance. Compute remains fungible unlike LLMs.
55.
by himaraya 3y ago
It shows nonprofit boards wield outsize power and need strict governance, e.g., conflicts of interest, empty board seats.
56.
by himaraya 3y ago
Why would the board endorse the sale?
57.
by himaraya 3y ago
They've hired a bunch. Tech giants pass everything through legal—too big not to. IP & patents remain a PITA regardless of market cap. Licensing ChatGPT versions developed by OpenAI seems favorable enough to me. The question boils d
58.
by himaraya 3y ago
Let's assume Microsoft can freely use present-day ChatGPT in its products. If Microsoft wanted to further develop ChatGPT in-house, I imagine the effort would resemble Apple's in-house modem struggles due to tiptoeing around Qualc
59.
by himaraya 3y ago
Don't like the WSJ? The blog post only indicates some kind of exclusive license to GPT-3, not the all-encompassing claim to OpenAI IP you suggest. Microsoft has never indicated such to my knowledge.
60.
by himaraya 3y ago
I agree but Sam made the deliberate choice to leave him in place after forcing out Reid Hoffman over Inflection AI. https://www.semafor.com/article/11/19/2023/reid-hoffman-was-...

More ›