zlacker

>>apsec1+(OP)
Sutskever: "You can call it (a coup), and I can understand why you chose this word, but I disagree with this. This was the board doing its duty to the mission of the nonprofit, which is to make sure that OpenAI builds AGI that benefits all of humanity."

Scoop: theinformation.com

https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1725707548106580255

>>convex+X1
Very unprofessional way to approach this disagreement.

>>peyton+G3
When two people have different ideologies and neither is willing to backdown or compromise, one person must "go".

>>strike+j4
There’s no indication that any sort of discussion took place. Major stakeholders like Microsoft appear uninformed.

>>peyton+B6
Basically half the point of this is that Microsoft isn’t a stakeholder. The board clearly doesn’t care or is actively hostile to the idea of growing “the business”. If they didn’t know then that they weren’t a stakeholder, they know now.

MS owns a non controlling share of a business controlled by a nonprofit. MS should have prepared for the possibility that their interests aren’t adequately represented. I’m guessing Altman is very persuasive and they were in a rush to make a deal.

>>vineya+Tc
Microsoft is a stakeholder. It’s absurd to suggest otherwise. The entire stakeholder concept was invented to encompass a broader view on corporate governance than just the people in the boardroom.

>>peyton+sw
This is a non profit dedicated to researching AI with the goal of making a safe AGI. That’s what the mission is. Sama starts trying to make it a business, restructures it to allow investors, of which MSFT is a 49% owner. He gets ousted and they tell Microsoft afterwards.

It’s questionable how much power Microsoft has as a shareholder. Obviously they have a staked interest in OpenAI. What is up in question is how much interest the new leaders have in Microsoft.

If I had a business relationship with OpenAI that didn’t align with their mission I would be very worried.