zlacker

>>medler+(OP)
But what about the legal responsability of Microsoft and investors there?

To explain, it's the board of the non-profit that ousted @sama .

Microsoft is not a member of the non-profit.

Microsoft is "only" a shareholder of its for-profit subsidiary - even for 10B.

Basically, what happened is a change of control in the non-profit majority shareholder of a company Microsoft invested in.

But not a change of control in the for-profit company they invested in.

To tell the truth, I am not even certain the board of the non-profit would have been legally allowed to discuss the issue with Microsoft at all - it's an internal issue only and that would be a conflict of interest.

Microsoft is not happy with that change of control and they favourited the previous representative of their partner.

Basically Microsoft want their shareholder non-profit partner to prioritize their interest over its own.

And to do that, they are trying to impede on its governance, even threatening it with disorganization, lawsuits and such.

This sounds like highly unethical and potentially illegal to me.

How come no one is pointing that out?

Also, how come a 90 billion dollars company hailed as the future of computing and a major transformative force for society would now be valued 0 dollars only because its non-technical founder is now out?

What does it say about the seriousness of it all?

But of course, that's Silicon Valley baby.

>>soufro+GM1
"Also, how come a 90 billion dollars company hailed as the future of computing and a major transformative force for society would now be valued 0 dollars only because its non-technical founder is now out?"

Please think about this. Sam Altman is the face of OpenAi and was doing a very good job leading it. If the relationships are what kept OpenAI from always being on top and they removed that from the company, corporations may be more hesitant to do business with them in the future.

>>bob_th+hO1
Well, once again, then it's Satya's mistake to have allowed the representative of an independant third party entity become the public face of a company he invested in.

OpenAI might have wasted the 10B of Microsoft. But whose fault is it in the first place? It's Microsoft's fault to have invested it in the first place.

>>soufro+QT1
Regardless of whether or not it was a "mistake" (I don't think it was... OpenAI is so far ahead of the competition that it's not even funny), the fact remains that a) Microsoft has dumped in tons of money that they want to get back and b) Microsoft has a tremendous amount of clout, in that they're providing the compute power that runs the whole shebang.

While I'm not privy to the contracts that were signed, what happens if Nadella sends a note to the OpenAI board that reads, roughly, "Bring back Altman or I'm gonna turn the lights off"?

Nadella is probably fairly pissed off to begin with. I can't imagine he appreciates being blindsided like this.

>>Turing+OY1
That would effectively exit Microsoft from the LLM race and be an absolutely massive hit to Microsoft shareholders. Unlike the OpenAI non-profit board, the CEO of MS actually is beholden to his shareholders to make a profit.

In other words, MS has the losing hand here and CEO of MS is bluffing.