zlacker

[return to "Three senior researchers have resigned from OpenAI"]
1. benkar+Dh[view] [source] 2023-11-18 09:43:05
>>convex+(OP)
It's incredible how many of you alleged tech people think that Sam just wanted a world of safe AI while his actions suggest he wanted to make dump trucks of money.

He was the one who partnered with Microsoft and turned it from a non-profit to a for-profit company.

◧◩
2. bchern+Vl[view] [source] 2023-11-18 10:20:51
>>benkar+Dh
Honest question: How would he make money if he didn’t have equity in OpenAI?
◧◩◪
3. twoodf+Cu[view] [source] 2023-11-18 11:30:49
>>bchern+Vl
Your forward-looking value to an organization is your value whether it’s realized in equity or not.

In the world where Sam Altman leads OpenAI to market dominance and eventual acquisition by Microsoft for $400B or whatever, he obviously would represent an important part of what Microsoft would be buying and would be compensated accordingly.

◧◩◪◨
4. n2d4+OA[view] [source] 2023-11-18 12:16:30
>>twoodf+Cu
No he wouldn't, if the CEO is substantially compensated for a $400B acquisition despite not owning equity that would be fraud. It's the CEO's fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of shareholders, if they take a $10bil cut for themselves that is $10bil that could've gone to the shareholders and hence not in their best interest.

It is the reason why CEOs (not Sam, apparently) are usually compensated in stock options. Golden parachutes are some sort of severance when the CEO gets fired immediately from the new company, eg. Twitter.

He's totally the guy who made OpenAI into ClosedAI, but money was clearly not his motivation.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. LeafIt+CG[view] [source] 2023-11-18 12:58:14
>>n2d4+OA
Can they not be paid a (very substantial) retention bonus? I’ve know people at startups that had no equity that were paid retention bonuses during acquisitions. Is a CEO different here?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. n2d4+7Q[view] [source] 2023-11-18 13:53:46
>>LeafIt+CG
Yes, but not too substantial, or the shareholders have grounds to sue based on what I said above.

A similar (but even more complicated) case is currently going on over at Sculptor Capital Management, where former management is suing current management because they have chosen to go with a "worse" acquisition deal that would let current management stay on-board. This is despite shareholder approval to the "worse" deal. https://www.pionline.com/hedge-funds/ex-sculptor-executives-...

In fact, to prevent this situation is exactly why golden parachutes exist.

It's also totally unproportional compared to what Sam would've gotten if he owned equity.

[go to top]