zlacker

When two people have different ideologies and neither is willing to backdown or compromise, one person must "go".

>>strike+(OP)
Or you introduce an authoritative third party that mediates their interactions. This feels like it wouldn't be a problem if so many high-ranking employees didn't feel so radically different about the same technology.

>>smolde+i
when did a board or CEO ever introduce an authoritative 3rd party to mediate between them? the board is the authoritative 3rd party.

>>strike+(OP)
There’s no indication that any sort of discussion took place. Major stakeholders like Microsoft appear uninformed.

>>smolde+i
Altman’s job was to be a go between for the business and engineering sides of the house. If the chief engineer who was driving the company wasn’t going to communicate with him anymore, then he wouldn’t serve much of a purpose.

>>peyton+i2
in a power struggle, you have to act quickly

>>strike+y2
I don't think it's that dramatic. In a board meeting, you have to act while the board is meeting. They don't meet every day, and it's a small rigamarole to pull a meeting together, so if you're meeting... vote.

>>fsckbo+t3
are you suggesting they brought up a vote on a whim at a board meeting and acted on it same day

>>vanjaj+g5
no, I was replying to a comment that said it was a power struggle in which the board needed to act quickly before they lost power.

The board may very well have met for this very reason, or perhaps it was at this meeting that the lack of candor was found or discussed, but to hold a board meeting there is overhead, and if the board is already in agreement at the meeting, they vote.

It only seems sudden to outsiders, and that suddenness does not mean a "night of the long knives".

>>fsckbo+t3
One imagines in this case the current board discussed this in a non-board context, scheduled a meeting without inviting the chair, made quorum, and voted, then wrote the PR and let Sam, Greg, and HR know, then released the PR. Which is pretty interesting in and of itself, maybe they were trying to sidestep roko or something

>>peyton+i2
Basically half the point of this is that Microsoft isn’t a stakeholder. The board clearly doesn’t care or is actively hostile to the idea of growing “the business”. If they didn’t know then that they weren’t a stakeholder, they know now.

MS owns a non controlling share of a business controlled by a nonprofit. MS should have prepared for the possibility that their interests aren’t adequately represented. I’m guessing Altman is very persuasive and they were in a rush to make a deal.

>>strike+(OP)
There's more graceful ways to do this though.

>>dekhn+p8
Not inviting the full board would likely be against the rules. Every company I've been part of has it in the bylaws that all members have to be invited. They don't all have to attend, but they all get invited.

>>lsafer+vd
sure. he could have been invited, but also not attended.

>>fsckbo+07
How would the board have lost power?

>>vineya+A8
Microsoft is a stakeholder. It’s absurd to suggest otherwise. The entire stakeholder concept was invented to encompass a broader view on corporate governance than just the people in the boardroom.

>>strike+(OP)
You've summed AI X-risk in a single sentence.

(I.e. an AGI would be one of the two people here.)

>>lazide+il
that's what i'm saying, it was not a power struggle. I shouldn't have to make the other guy's argument for him...

>>peyton+9s
This is a non profit dedicated to researching AI with the goal of making a safe AGI. That’s what the mission is. Sama starts trying to make it a business, restructures it to allow investors, of which MSFT is a 49% owner. He gets ousted and they tell Microsoft afterwards.

It’s questionable how much power Microsoft has as a shareholder. Obviously they have a staked interest in OpenAI. What is up in question is how much interest the new leaders have in Microsoft.

If I had a business relationship with OpenAI that didn’t align with their mission I would be very worried.