zlacker

[return to "We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO"]
1. flylib+z4[view] [source] 2023-11-22 06:31:41
>>staran+(OP)
"A source with direct knowledge of the negotiations says that the sole job of this initial board is to vet and appoint a new formal board of up to 9 people that will reset the governance of OpenAl. Microsoft will likely have a seat on that expanded board, as will Altman himself."

https://twitter.com/teddyschleifer/status/172721237871736880...

◧◩
2. rcaugh+Ts[view] [source] 2023-11-22 09:33:14
>>flylib+z4
> as will Altman himself

Would you trust someone who doesn't believe in responsible governance for themselves, to apply responsible governance elsewhere?

◧◩◪
3. mijoha+Cz[view] [source] 2023-11-22 10:32:01
>>rcaugh+Ts
How has the board shown that they fired Sam Altman due to "responsible governance".

They haven't really said anything about why it was, and according to business insider[0] (the only reporting that I've seen that says anything concrete) the reasons given were:

> One explanation was that Altman was said to have given two people at OpenAI the same project.

> The other was that Altman was said to have given two board members different opinions about a member of personnel.

Firing the CEO of a company and only being able to articulate two (in my opinion) weak examples of why, and causing >95% of your employees to say they will quit unless you resign does not seem responsible.

If they can articulate reasons why it was necessary, sure, but we haven't seen that yet.

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/openais-employees-given-expl...

◧◩◪◨
4. ethanb+IJ[view] [source] 2023-11-22 12:00:16
>>mijoha+Cz
Good lord: it’s a private company. As a general matter of course it’s inadvisable to comment on specifics of why someone is fired. The lack of a thing that pretty much never happens anyway (public comment) is just harmful to your soap opera, not to the potential legitimacy of the action.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. danger+EO[view] [source] 2023-11-22 12:36:35
>>ethanb+IJ
Its not a private company it is a non profit working in the public interest this usually requires some sort of public accountability. The board want to be a public good when they make decisions but want to be a private entity when those decisions are criticised by the public.
[go to top]