zlacker

>>medler+(OP)
This makes sense. The board thinks they're calling the shots, but the reality is the people with the money are the ones calling the shots, always. Boards are just appointed by shareholders aka investors aka capital holders to do their bidding.

The capped-profit / non-profit structure muddles that a little bit, but the reality is that entity can't survive without the funding that goes into the for-profit piece

And if current investors + would-be investors threaten to walk away, what can the board really do? They have no leverage.

Sounds like they really didn't "play the tape forward" and think this through...

>>airstr+r3
This is wildly incorrect. But a non-profit does have stakeholders, donors, beneficiaries and employees. All of those can apply pressure on a board.

>>jacque+mj
> This is wildly incorrect

Great, we'll take your word for it.

>>airstr+Fv
Sorry, but you are just simply factually incorrect. That the board itself serves at the pleasure of other interests is clear (and even then, if they don't want to leave getting rid of them can be tricky depending on the details) but they do call the shots. The question is whether or not they can make it stick.

But until he is re-hired Sam Altman is to all intents and purposes fired. And it may well come to that (and that would almost certainly require all those board members who voted for his ouster to vacate their positions because their little coup plan backfired and nobody is going to take the risk of that happening again, especially not in this way).

>>jacque+Hw
Sorry, but I am just simply not factually incorrect. Again you want me to just take your opinion as fact... but stating it strongly doesn't make your argument more cogent.

Boards are agents to their principals. They call the shots only as long as their principals deem them to be calling them correctly. If they don't, they get replaced. Said differently, board members are "appointed" to do the bidding of someone else. They have no inherent power. Therefore, they do not, ultimately, call the final shots. Owners do. Like I said, this situation is a little muddier because it's a non-profit that owns a for-profit company, so there's an added layer of complexity between agents and principals.

OpenAI isn't worth $90B because of its non-profit. The for-profit piece is what matters to investors, and those investors are paying the bills. Sure, the non-profit board can fire Altman and carry on with their mission, but then everyone who is there "for profit" can also pack up their things and start OpenAI 2.0 where they no longer need the non-profit, and investors will follow them. I assume that's an undesirable outcome for the board as I suspect the amount of money raised at the for-profit level dwarfs the amount donated to the non-profit... which effectively means the for-profit shareholders own the company. Hence my original comment.