zlacker

[return to "OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO"]
1. lucubr+Lk[view] [source] 2023-11-19 00:36:18
>>medler+(OP)
It's insane to me how easily Sam's side can spin the board firing him for violating the company's Charter and then not backtracking at all as "Within 24 hours the board has come crawling back, I- er Sam Altman might deign to return if they grovel hard enough and I'm given complete control."

This is really, really clearly incestuous tech media stuff as part of a pressure campaign. Sam is the darlin of tech media and he's clearly instigated this reporting because they're reporting his thoughts and not the Board's in an article that purports to know what the Board is thinking, the investors who aren't happy (the point of a non-profit is that they are allowed to make investors unhappy in pursuit of the greater mission!) have an obvious incentive to join him in this pressure campaign, and then all he needs for "journalism" is one senior employee who's willing to leave for Sam to instead say to the Verge that the Board is reconsidering. Boom, massive pressure campaign and perception of the Board flip flopping without them doing any such thing. If they had done any such thing and there was proof of that, the Verge could have quoted the thoughts of anyone on the Board, stated it had reviewed communications and verified they were genuine, etc.

◧◩
2. yreg+et[view] [source] 2023-11-19 01:39:13
>>lucubr+Lk
> violating the company's Charter

What did he violate specifically?

◧◩◪
3. brooks+Qu[view] [source] 2023-11-19 01:49:16
>>yreg+et
Any why didn’t the board cite these violations?
◧◩◪◨
4. dragon+iv[view] [source] 2023-11-19 01:53:11
>>brooks+Qu
The board didn't claim there were violations, it claimed he wasn't fully candid with them and that they had lost confidence in his leadership. "Violations of the charter" was something invented by the upthread commenter.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. lucubr+xX[view] [source] 2023-11-19 05:05:20
>>dragon+iv
There is a bunch of independent reporting citing sources inside OpenAI that the central dispute is over the principles of the Charter, and while no one is clear on the lack of candour thing my view is that it's just an excuse, there was probably a real incident(s) but it wouldn't have been fireable if not for the core dispute about the Charter. They did explicitly re-affirm the Charter in their announcement of Sam's dismissal:

"OpenAI was founded as a non-profit in 2015 with the core mission of ensuring that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity. In 2019, OpenAI restructured to ensure that the company could raise capital in pursuit of this mission, while preserving the nonprofit's mission, governance, and oversight. The majority of the board is independent, and the independent directors do not hold equity in OpenAI. While the company has experienced dramatic growth, it remains the fundamental governance responsibility of the board to advance OpenAI’s mission and preserve the principles of its Charter."

[go to top]