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
A non profit board absolutely calls the shots at a non profit, in so far as the CEO and their employment goes. Non profit boards are not beholden, structurally, to investors and there are no shareholders.

No stakeholder would walk away from OpenAI for want of sam Altman. They don’t license OpenAI technology or provide funding for his contribution. They do it to get access to GPT4. There is no comparable competitor available.

If anything they would be miffed about how it was handled, but to be frank, unless GPT4 is sam Altman furiously typing, I don’t know he’s that important. The instability caused by the suddenness, that’s different.

>>fnordp+f7
> A non profit board absolutely calls the shots at a non profit, in so far as the CEO and their employment goes. Non profit boards are not beholden, structurally, to investors and there are no shareholders.

There is theory and there is reality. If someone is paying your bills by an outsized amount and they say jump, you will say how high.

The influence is rarely that explicit though. The board knowing that X investor provides 60% of their funding, for instance, means the board is incentivized to do things that keep X investor happy without X having to ask for it.

9 times out of 10, money drives decisions in a captilist environment

>>Infini+bn
OpenAI hasn’t received much funding from Microsoft or other investors, and is profitable already with no lack of interested suitors for funding and partnership. Microsoft’s leverage is grossly overstated mostly because it suits Microsoft to appear important to OpenAI when it’s the other way around.

>>fnordp+7q
They received a 10 billion dollar investment that allows the product to operate plus they provide the servers. Without that your $20 a month goes to 2,000

>>ipaddr+vB
They’ve actually drawn very little of that $10b. They are profitable at the moment, and would have no trouble raising funds from anywhere at the moment in any quantity they wanted.