- 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
It doesn’t feel like anything was accomplished besides wasting 700+ people’s time, and the only thing that has changed now is Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley are off the board.
Particularly as she openly expressed that "destroying" that company might be the best outcome. [2]
> During the call, Jason Kwon, OpenAI’s chief strategy officer, said the board was endangering the future of the company by pushing out Mr. Altman. This, he said, violated the members’ responsibilities. Ms. Toner disagreed. The board’s mission was to ensure that the company creates artificial intelligence that “benefits all of humanity,” and if the company was destroyed, she said, that could be consistent with its mission.
[1] https://www.chinafile.com/contributors/helen-toner [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/21/technology/openai-altman-...
Toner got her board seat because she was basically Holden Karnofsky's designated replacement:
> Holden Karnofsky resigns from the Board, citing a potential conflict because his wife, Daniela Amodei, is helping start Anthropic, a major OpenAI competitor, with her brother Dario Amodei. (They all live(d) together.) The exact date of Holden’s resignation is unknown; there was no contemporaneous press release.
> Between October and November 2021, Holden was quietly removed from the list of Board Directors on the OpenAI website, and Helen was added (Discussion Source). Given their connection via Open Philanthropy and the fact that Holden’s Board seat appeared to be permanent, it seems that Helen was picked by Holden to take his seat.
https://loeber.substack.com/p/a-timeline-of-the-openai-board
> it seems that Helen was picked by Holden to take his seat.
So you can only speculate as to how she got the seat. Which is exactly my point. We can only speculate. And it's a question worth asking, because governance of America's most important AI company is a very important topic right now.