zlacker

>>himara+(OP)
Altman is more powerful than I thought.

>>nothro+08
I don't think so at all -- the board was simply far dumber than we thought.

The board didn't plan or think this through at all.

This isn't about Sam being powerful, just about him being a reasonable predictable cofounder Microsoft can work with. It's the rest of the board that shocked Microsoft with how unprofessional their actions were, that they can't be worked with.

The very idea that they would fire Sam without even consulting with Microsoft first is such a gigantic red flag in judgment.

>>crazyg+va1
If the issue is they believe Sam's focus on commercialization is inherently against their charter, Microsoft is key to that - they are the shining example of this shift. Consulting with them would be antithetical to solving the problem.

For a for-profit, the pragmatic approach due to Microsoft also being the majority computer provider (We can set aside the investments for the moment - most are in the form of compute credits and come in tranches. OpenAI is not sitting on $10B in cash in their bank accounts or whatever) would make a lot of sense.

But they're a non-profit that operate in accordance to their pipe-dream charter. You and I might be skeptical of it or just think it's generally dumb, but non-profits are allowed to believe in pipe-dreams and pursue them.

At the very least they still issued a poorly worded statement and have not been able to recover from that, but it is quite possible that their attitude towards the investors in the for-profit is entirely consistent with the charter they are supposed to be following.