zlacker

> I don't really understand Altman's compensation. I'm not sure I would WANT to work under a CEO that has literally ZERO stake in the company.

This is a non-profit not a company. The board values the mission over the stock price of their for-profit subsidiary.

Having a CEO who does not own equity helps make sure that the non-profit mission remains the CEOs top priority. In this case though, perhaps that was not enough.

>>shkkmo+(OP)
Well that's always been the rub ... It's a non-profit AND a for-profit company (controlled by a non-profit)

It's also extremely intertwined with and competes with for-profit companies

Financially it's wholly dependent on Microsoft, one of the biggest for-profit companies in the world

Many of the employees are recruited from for-profit companies (e.g. Google), though certainly many come from academic institutions too.

So the whole thing is very messy, kind of "born in conflict" (similar to Twitter's history -- a history of conflicts between CEOs).

It sounds like this is a continuation of the conflict that led to Anthropic a few years ago.