zlacker

>>staran+(OP)
With Sam coming back as CEO, hasn't OpenAI board proven that it has lost its function? Regardless of who is in the board, they won't be able to exercise one of the most fundamental of their rights, firing the CEO, because Sam has proven that he is unfireable. Now, Sam can do however he pleases, whether it is lying, not reporting, etc. To be clear, I don't claim that Sam did, or will, lie, or misbehave.

>>laserl+gb
Imagine if the board of Apple fired Tim Cook with no warning right after he went on stage and announced their new developer platform updates for the year alongside record growth and sales, refused to elaborate as to the reasons or provide any useful communications to investors over several days, and replaced their first interim CEO with another interim CEO from a completely different kind of business in that same weekend.

If you don't think there would be a shareholder revolt against the board, for simply exercising their most fundamental right to fire the CEO, I think you're missing part the picture.

>>stetra+wo1
It is prudent to recall that enhancing shareholder value and delivering record growth and sales are NOT the mission of the company or Board. But now it appears that it will have to be.

>>hacker+8v1
Yeah, but they also didn't elaborate in the slightest about how they were serving the charter with their actions.

If they were super-duper worried about how Sam was going to cause a global extinction event with AI, or even just that he was driving the company in too commercial of a direction, they should have said that to everyone!

The idea that they could fire the CEO with a super vague, one-paragraph statement, and then expect 800 employees who respect that CEO to just... be totally fine with that is absolutely fucking insane, regardless of the board's fiduciary responsibilities. They're board members, not gods.

>>ketzo+QL1
They don't have to elaborate. As many have pointed out, most people have been given advice to not say anything at all when SHTF. If they did say something there would still be drama. It's best to keep these details internal.

I still believe in the theory that Altman was going hard after profits. Both McCauley and Toner are focused on the altruistic aspects of AGI and safety. Altman shouldn't be at OpenAI and neither should D’Angelo.

>>NanoYo+q92
Okay, keep silent to save your own ass, fine

But why would anyone expect 800 people to risk their livelihoods and work without a little serious justification? This was an inevitable reaction.

>>ketzo+Rf2
I think it's important to keep in mind that BOTH Altman and the board maneuvered to threaten to destroy OpenAI.

If Altman was silent and/or said something like "people take some time off for Thanksgiving, in a week calmer minds will prevail" while negotiating behind the scenes, OpenAI would look a lot less dire in the last few days. Instead he launched a public pressure campaign, likely pressured Mira, got Satya to make some fake commitments, got Greg Bockman's wife to emotionally pressure Ilya, etc.

Masterful chess, clearly. But playing people like pieces nonetheless.