- OpenAI has damaged their brand and lost trust, but may still become a hugely successful company if they build great products
- OpenAI looks stronger now with a more professional board, but has fundamentally transformed into a for-profit focused on commercializing LLMs
- OpenAI still retains impressive talent and technology assets and could pivot into a leading AI provider if managed well
---
Sam Altman's Leadership
- Sam emerged as an irreplaceable CEO with overwhelming employee loyalty, but may have to accept more oversight
- Sam has exceptional leadership abilities but can be manipulative; he will likely retain control but have to keep stakeholders aligned
---
Board Issues
- The board acted incompetently and destructively without clear reasons or communication
- The new board seems more reasonable but may struggle to govern given Sam's power
- There are still opposing factions on ideology and commercialization that will continue battling
---
Employee Motivations
- Employees followed the money trail and Sam to preserve their equity and careers
- Peer pressure and groupthink likely also swayed employees more than principles
- Mission-driven employees may still leave for opportunities at places like Anthropic
---
Safety vs Commercialization
- The safety faction lost this battle but still has influential leaders wanting to constrain the technology
- Rapid commercialization beat out calls for restraint but may hit snags with model issues
---
Microsoft Partnership
- Microsoft strengthened its power despite not appearing involved in the drama
- OpenAI is now clearly beholden to Microsoft's interests rather than an independent entity
First, they had offers to walk to both Microsoft and Salesforce and be made good. They didn't have to stay and fight to have money and careers.
But more importantly, put yourself in the shoes of an employee and read https://web.archive.org/web/20231120233119/https://www.busin... for what they apparently heard.
I don't know about anyone else. But if I was being asked to choose sides in a he-said, she-said dispute, the board was publicly hinting at really bad stuff, and THAT was the explanation, I know what side I'd take.
Don't forget, when the news broke, people's assumption from the wording of the board statement was that Sam was doing shady stuff, and there was potential jail time involved. And they justify smearing Sam like that because two board members thought they heard different things from Sam, and he gave what looked like the same project to two people???
There were far better stories that they could have told. Heck, the Internet made up many far better narratives than the board did. But that was the board's ACTUAL story.
Put me on the side of, "I'd have signed that letter, and money would have had nothing to do with it."