zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
A NY Times article says "Though Mr. Musk has repeatedly criticized OpenAI for becoming a for-profit company, he hatched a plan in 2017 to wrest control of the A.I. lab from Mr. Altman and its other founders and transform into a commercial operation that would work alongside his other companies, including the electric carmaker Tesla, and make use of their increasingly powerful supercomputers, people familiar with his plan have said. When his attempt to take control failed, he left the OpenAI board, the people said."

That would let OpenAI lawyers keep this suit tied up for a very long time.

>>sema4h+m31
Could he be the one behind the recent coup at OpenAI, as well?

>>morale+Q71
My impression from all the stuff I’ve looked at was that one board member wrote a paper praising Anthropic’s approach with implied (or not so implied?) criticism of OpenAI’s approach. This got Altman furious. So he was going to each board member and subtly (or not so subtly?) presenting a case for her removal, using whatever reasoning, sometimes contradictory, he could tack on, maybe trying to intimidate some into compliance. This approach may have rubbed them the wrong way? Those board members communicated with each other and noted the contradictions, so they summarily fired him without consulting lawyers and without gathering a workable case file to present to stakeholders and the public. Without Altman’s relationships with the largest funders, employees got nervous and wanted information the board was rather embarrassed not to have, exacerbating the anxiety in the workforce. I’m sure that whatever the charter says about investments as donations, Microsoft had the lawyers to ensure they did not have to sink hundreds of millions into a sinking ship.

No Musk required, the individuals at OpenAI did it to themselves.