zlacker

>>himara+(OP)
This is why, when you claim to be running a non-profit to "benefit humankind," you shouldn't put all your resources into a for-profit subsidiary. Eventually, the for-profit arm, and its investors, will find its nonprofit parent a hindrance, and an insular board of directors won't stand a chance against corporate titans.

>>jasonh+4t
Interestingly it was the other way around this time, at least to start...

>>dnissl+Ct
This was pretty clearly an attempt by the board to reassert control, which was slowly slipping away as the company became more enmeshed with Microsoft.

>>jasonh+fu
Does that mean that the move of the board was actually good for openness of AI ?

>>rvnx+Yv
The board were literally doing their job. Anyone claiming incompetence is just mistaken about the stated goal of openai: safe available agi for all.

Throw in a huge investment, a 90 billion dollar valuation and a rockstar ceo. It’s pretty clear the court of public opinion is wrong about this case.

>>aunty_+tx
they likely could have negotiated it better, but I agree, all these Altman fans really suggest the cult of business sapping any nonprofit motive.

>>cyanyd+Iy
Their actions were reckless and irresponsible. They are currently picking their successors. The incompetence is staggering regardless of motive.

>>peyton+cH
We're still waiting for the explanations from Altman about the alleged involvement in spending time on conflicting companies while he is CEO at OpenAI.

According to FT this could be the cause for the firing:

“Sam has a company called Oklo, and [was trying to launch] a device company and a chip company (for AI). The rank and file at OpenAI don’t dispute those are important. The dispute is that OpenAI doesn’t own a piece. If he’s making a ton of money from companies around OpenAI there are potential conflicts of interest.”

>>rvnx+YH
Isn’t it amazing how companies worry about lowly, ordinary employees moonlighting, but C-suiters and board members being involved in several ventures is totally normal?