zlacker

>>davidb+(OP)
From NYT article [1] and Greg's tweet [2]

"In a post to X Friday evening, Mr. Brockman said that he and Mr. Altman had no warning of the board’s decision. “Sam and I are shocked and saddened by what the board did today,” he wrote. “We too are still trying to figure out exactly what happened.”

Mr. Altman was asked to join a video meeting with the board at noon on Friday and was immediately fired, according to Mr. Brockman. Mr. Brockman said that even though he was the chairman of the board, he was not part of this board meeting.

He said that the board informed him of Mr. Altman’s ouster minutes later. Around the same time, the board published a blog post."

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/technology/openai-sam-alt...

[2] https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1725736242137182594

>>gordon+LA1
power hijack by the doomers. too bad the cat is out of the bag already

>>waihti+gM1
Quite possible actually, this seems to become a really hot political potato with at least 3 types of ambition running it 1. Business 2. Regulatory 3. ’Religious/Academic’. By latter I mean the divide between ai doomerists and others is caused by insubstantiable dogma (doom/nirvana).

>>fsloth+eO1
this is why you don't bring NGO types into your board, and you especially don't give them power to oust you.

>>waihti+nP1
> this is why you don't bring NGO types into your board

OpenAI is an NGO…?

>>mrmann+ZR1
That is neither stated nor implied, unless you’re simply making the objection, “But OpenAI _is_ nongovernmental.”

Most readers are aware they were a research and advocacy organization that became (in the sense that public benefit tax-free nonprofit groups and charitable foundations normally have no possibility of granting anyone equity ownership nor exclusive rights to their production) a corporation by creating one; but some of the board members are implied by the parent comment to be from NGO-type backgrounds.

>>glompe+9X1
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Perhaps you could point out where your perspective differs from mine? So, as I see it: Open AI _is_ a non-profit, though it has an LLC it wholly controls that doesn't have non-profit status. It never "became" for-profit (IANAL, but is that even possible? It seems like that should not be possible), the only thing that happened is that the LLC was allowed to collect some "profit" - but that in turn would go to its owners, primarily the non-profit. As far as I'm aware the board in question that went through this purge _was_ the non-profit's board (does the LLC have a board?)

From the non-profit's perspective, it sounds pretty reasonable to self-police and ensure there aren't any rogue parts of the organization that are going off and working at odds with the overall non-profit's formal aims. It's always been weird that the Open-AI LLC seemed to be so commercially focused even when that might conflict with it's sole controller's interests; notably the LLC very explicitly warned investors that the NGO's mission took precedence over profit.