zlacker

>>medler+(OP)
This makes no sense. People are calling what the board did a coup, but Altman is trying (failing?) to stage a coup.

The board was Altmans boss - this is pretty much their only job. Altman knew this and most likely ignored any questions or concerns of theirs thinking he is the unfireable superstar

Imagine if your boss fired you - and your response was - I’ll come back if you quit! Yeah, no. People might confuse status with those of actual ceo shareholders like zuck, bezos, or musk. But Altman is just another employee

The shareholders can fire the board, but that’s not what he’s asking for. And so far we haven’t heard anything about them getting fired. So mostly this just seems like an egomaniac employee who thinks he is the company (while appropriating the work of some really really smart data scientists)

>>shmatt+by
>People are calling what the board did a coup, but Altman is trying (failing?) to stage a coup.

The board removed the board's chairman and fired the CEO. That's why it was called a coup.

>The shareholders can fire the board, but that’s not what he’s asking for. And so far we haven’t heard anything about them getting fired

nonprofits don't have shareholders (or shares).

>>sigmar+9z
nope. a coup implies something that is outside of normal operation. the board removing the CEO can and will happen.

>>x86x87+gI
The fact that HN engineering grunts have no idea what table stakes are vs titles and authority shows how they aren’t cut out for executive brinksmanship.

Sam has superior table stakes.

>>tsunam+vJ
I don’t think you are using table stakes correctly

>>zeroon+kL
Really? Aka Sam has the ability to start a new business and take the contracts with him and Ilya doesn’t. Because that’s table stakes. Exactly.

>>tsunam+NL
Everyone on that board is financially independent and can do whatever they want. If Sam & Ilya can't get along that basically means there are 2 companies where previously there was OpenAI. (4 if you add Google and Anthropic into the mix; remember that OpenAI was founded because Ilya left Google, and then Anthropic was founded when a bunch of top OpenAI researchers left and started their own company).

Ultimately this is good for competition and the gen-AI ecosystem, even if it's catastrophic for OpenAI.

>>nostra+WP
Anyone can do whatever they want, it doesn’t mean it will work out the way they want it too.

>>tsunam+sQ
I'm curious what you're inferring to be "the way they want it to"?

From my read, Ilya's goal is to not work with Sam anymore, and relatedly, to focus OpenAI on more pure AGI research without needing to answer to commercial pressures. There is every indication that he will succeed in that. It's also entirely possible that that may mean less investment from Microsoft etc, less commercial success, and a narrower reach and impact. But that's the point.

Sam's always been about having a big impact and huge commercial success, so he's probably going to form a new company that poaches some top OpenAI researchers, and aggressively go after things like commercial partnerships and AI stores. But that's also the point.

Both board members are smart enough that they will probably get what they want, they just want different things.

>>nostra+eR
You need to remember that most people on this site subscribe to the ideology that growth is the only thing that matters. They're Michael Douglas 'greed is good' type of people wrapped up in a spiffy technological veneer.

Any decision that doesn't make the 'line go up' is considered a dumb decision. So to most people on this site, kicking Sam out of the company was a bad idea because it meant the company's future earning potential had cratered.

>>stdgy+RT
> You need to remember that most people on this site subscribe to the ideology that growth is the only thing that matters

I'm not sure that's actually true anymore. Look at any story about "growth", and you'll see plenty of skeptical comments. I'd say the audience has skewed pretty far from all the VC stuff.