zlacker

>>medler+(OP)
Update on the OpenAI drama: Altman and the board had till 5pm to reach a truce where the board would resign and he and Brockman would return. The deadline has passed and mass resignations expected if a deal isn’t reached ASAP

https://twitter.com/alexeheath/status/1726055095341875545

>>meetpa+Kv
Pretty incredible incompetence all around if true.

From the board for not anticipating a backlash and caving immediately... from Microsoft for investing into an endeavor that is purportedly chartered as non-profit and governed by nobodies who can sink it on a whim. And having 0 hard influence on the direction despite a large ownership stake

Why bother with a non-profit model that is surreptitiously for profit? The whole structure of OpenAI is largely a facade at this point.

Just form a new for profit company and be done with it. Altman's direction for profit is fine, but shouldn't have been pursued under the loose premise of a non profit.

While OpenAI leads currently, there are so many competitors that are within striking distance without the drama. Why keep the baggage?

It's pretty clear that the best engineering will decide the winners, not the popularity of the CEO. OpenAI has first mover advantage, and perhaps better talent, but not by an order of magnitude. There is no special sauce here.

Altman may be charismatic and well connected, but the hero worship put forward on here is really sad and misplaced.

>>adam_a+zH
look at the backgrounds of those board members... cant find any evidence that any of them have experience with corporate politics. theyre in way over their heads.

>>lazyst+LL
It is also crazy that the "winning move" was to just do nothing and look like a genius and coast off that for the rest of their lives. Who in their right mind would consider them for a board position now.

>>robswc+KM
This is assuming motivations similar to a board for a for-profit company, which the OpenAI board is not.

Insisting, no matter how painful, that the organization stays true to the charter could be considered a desirable trait for the board of a non-profit.

>>cthalu+tO
Fair. I don't know why they wouldn't just come out and say that though, if that were the case. It would be seen as admirable, instead of snake-ish.

Instead of "Sam has been lying to us" it could have been "Sam had diverged too far from the original goal, when he did X."

>>robswc+SP
It's hard to say. Lots of things don't really make sense based on the information we have.

They could have meant that Sam had 'not been candid' about his alignment with commercial interests vs. the charter.