zlacker

this is why you don't bring NGO types into your board, and you especially don't give them power to oust you.

>>waihti+(OP)
> this is why you don't bring NGO types into your board

OpenAI is an NGO…?

>>mrmann+C2
That is neither stated nor implied, unless you’re simply making the objection, “But OpenAI _is_ nongovernmental.”

Most readers are aware they were a research and advocacy organization that became (in the sense that public benefit tax-free nonprofit groups and charitable foundations normally have no possibility of granting anyone equity ownership nor exclusive rights to their production) a corporation by creating one; but some of the board members are implied by the parent comment to be from NGO-type backgrounds.

>>glompe+M7
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Perhaps you could point out where your perspective differs from mine? So, as I see it: Open AI _is_ a non-profit, though it has an LLC it wholly controls that doesn't have non-profit status. It never "became" for-profit (IANAL, but is that even possible? It seems like that should not be possible), the only thing that happened is that the LLC was allowed to collect some "profit" - but that in turn would go to its owners, primarily the non-profit. As far as I'm aware the board in question that went through this purge _was_ the non-profit's board (does the LLC have a board?)

From the non-profit's perspective, it sounds pretty reasonable to self-police and ensure there aren't any rogue parts of the organization that are going off and working at odds with the overall non-profit's formal aims. It's always been weird that the Open-AI LLC seemed to be so commercially focused even when that might conflict with it's sole controller's interests; notably the LLC very explicitly warned investors that the NGO's mission took precedence over profit.

>>waihti+(OP)
What does “your” board mean in this context? Who’s “your”?

The CEO just works for the organization and the board is their boss.

You’re referencing a founder situation where the CEO is also a founder who also has equity and thus the board also reports to them.

This isn’t that. Altman didn’t own anything, it’s not his company, it’s a non-profit. He just works there. He got fired.

>>CPLX+Ko
I believe altman had some ownership, however it is a general lesson of handing over substantial power to laymen who are completely detached from the actual ops & know-how of the company

>>waihti+0v
nobody handed over power. presumably they were appointed to the board to do exactly what they did (if this theory holds), in which cass this outcome would be a feature not a bug

>>waihti+0v
There’s no such thing as owning a non-profit.

>>glompe+M7
My objection is that OpenAI, at least to my knowledge, still is a non-profit organization that is not part of the government and has some kind of public benefit goals - that sounds like an NGO to me. Thus appointing “NGO types” to the board sounds reasonable: They have experience running that kind of organization.

Many NGOs run limited liability companies and for-profit businesses as part of their operations, that’s in no way unique for OpenAI. Girl Scout cookies are an example.