zlacker

Occams razor. He probably pursued a sale to Microsoft without the boards approval. Hes buddy buddy with Satya. Board basically said no, thats not our mission. Firedd

>>baidif+(OP)
Makes sense, but would this be so egregious that they had to fire him on the spot?

>>baidif+(OP)
Why would he want to sell to Microsoft. All that would do is put his leadership in jeopardy, and he wouldn't profit as he owns no equity.

>>baidif+(OP)
Occam's razor: duped the investors about the technical and financial prospects of the company. No AGI next year (or ever).

>>resour+J7
It has to be something time sensitive or they would never fire him in this way. Also Sutskever is on the board, who has as much understanding of how far away AGI is as anyone on Earth.

>>baidif+(OP)
The equity explanation makes a lot more sense. If sama was "not candid" to the board about being the ultimate owner of OpenAI and his goal is to get unbelievably rich (he's already a billionaire and obsessed with money) they would have to fire him on the spot. Sam would immediately try to move against the board so they can't give him any window to make a counter-move. And if that means firing him on a Friday right before markets close, so be it.

If Sam made a deal with MSFT that required board approval they would be mad, but not this mad. The board feels betrayed, and Sam being the secret owner of OpenAI through the foundation checks all the boxes.

>>baidif+(OP)
> Hes buddy buddy with Satya.

Why would he accept to work under Satya?

>>sumedh+Hr
Meh, he could be co-ceo and head all AI operations and that will help Microsoft signal how serious they are about AI

>>manque+gr1
Co CEOs never works, these are people with very strong ambitions, they dont like to share and it ultimately leads to conflicts.

>>sumedh+qg4
That doesn't mean companies don't do it all the time.