zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. tsimio+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-18 06:56:06
Per other profiles of OpenAI, this is an organization of true believers in the benefits and dangers of AGI. It's also a non-profit, not a company.

All this to say that the board is probably unlike the boards of the vast majority of tech companies.

replies(1): >>danbmi+r9
◧
2. danbmi+r9[view] [source] 2023-11-18 08:24:22
>>tsimio+(OP)
This. There were no investors on the board -- as Jason @ all-in said "that's just crazy".
replies(1): >>banana+ik
◧◩
3. banana+ik[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-18 10:00:59
>>danbmi+r9
> as Jason @ all-in said

lol

> "that's just crazy".

why is it crazy? the purpose of OpenAI is not to make investors rich - having investors on the board trying to make money for themselves would be crazy.

replies(1): >>Raston+6o
◧◩◪
4. Raston+6o[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-18 10:31:10
>>banana+ik
Exactly, if we assume Altman wanting to pursue commercialization at the cost of safety was the issue, the board did its job by advancing its mandate of "AI for the benefit of humanity" although not sure why they went with the nuclear option.
replies(1): >>tsimio+Et
◧◩◪◨
5. tsimio+Et[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-18 11:17:50
>>Raston+6o
Very true.

Though I would go further than that: if that is indeed the reason, the board has proven themselves very much incompetent. It would be quite incompetent to invite this type of shadow of scandal for something that was a fundamentally reasonable disagreement.

[go to top]