zlacker

>>medler+(OP)
The board seems truly incompetent here and looking at the member list it doesn't seem very surprising. A competent board should have asked for legal and professional advice before taking a drastic step like this. Instead the board thought it was a boxing match and tried to deliver a knockout punch before the market closes with blunt language. This might be the most incompetent board for an organisation of this size.

>>crop_r+w3
The major investors whose money is on the line and who are funding the venture, Microsoft, Sequoia, and Khosla, were not given advanced warning or any input in to how this would impact their investment.

I would definitely say the board screwed up.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2023/11/17/openai-in...

>>silenc+kz
The board of the non-profit (one that fired Sam) has no fiduciary duty to those investors, I believe. Microsoft invested in the for-profit Openai, which is owned by the non-profit. The other ones I don't know.

The board has no responsibility to Microsoft whatsoever regarding this. Sam Altman structured it this way himself. Not to say that the board didn't screw up.

>>MVisse+jK
how can a non-profit own a for-profit?

honest question

>>alickz+qN1
Easy, they own shares. For example, the nonprofit Mormon church owns 47 billion in equity in private companies including Amazon, Exxon, Tesla, and Nvidia[1].

Nothing stopping a non-profit from owning all the shares in a for-profit.

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-10-holdings-mormon-church...