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
No one is saying they are now valued at 0.

They are likely valued a lot less than 80 billion now.

OpenAI had the largest multiple - >100X their revenue for a recent startup.

That multiple is a lot smaller now without SamA.

Honestly the market needs a correction.

>>nojvek+QP1
SamA is nowhere even close to relevant to the value that OpenAI presents. He's def. less than half a billion and likely much less than that. What makes OpenAI so transformative is the technology it produces and SamA is not an engineer that built that technology. If the people that made it were to all leave it would reduce the value of the company by a large amount, but the technology would remain and it is not easy to duplicate given the scarcity of GPU cycles, the training data now being very hard to acquire and lots of other well invested companies chasing with the likes of Google, Meta, Anthropic. That doesn't even begin to mention the open source models that are also competing.

SamA could try and start his own new copy of OpenAI and I have no doubt raise a lot of money, but that new company if it just tried to reproduce what OpenAI has already done would be not worth very much. By the time they reproduce OpenAI and its competitors will have already moved on to bigger and better things.

Enough with the hero worship for SamA and all the other salesmen.

>>manyos+cV1
SamA is nowhere even close to relevant to the value that OpenAI presents.

The issue isn’t SamA per se. It’s that the old valuation was assuming that the company was trying to make money. The new valuation is taking into account that instead they might be captured by a group that has some sci-fi notion about saving the world from an existential threat.

>>bradle+xW1
The threat is existential, and if they're trying to save the world, that's commendable.

>>underd+HY1
If they intended to protect humanity this was a misfire.

OpenAI is one of many AI companies. A board coup which sacrifices one company's value due to a few individuals' perception of the common good is reckless and speaks to their delusions of grandeur.

Removing one individual from one company in a competitive industry is not a broad enough stroke if the threat to humanity truly exists.

Regulators across nations would need to firewall this threat on a macro level across all AI companies, not just internally at OpenAI.

If an AI threat to humanity is even actionable today. That's a heavy decision for elected representatives, not corporate boards.