zlacker

Whether you side with Sam or Ilya on rollout speed and approach to safety, the breathtaking incompetence of this coup has already incinerated a stunning amount of trust. One could hardly ask for a better demonstration that it matters not only what you do and why, but also how - above all, how you treat the ones who rely on you.

>>xiansh+(OP)
How do you define "safety"?

It's becoming a bit of a weasel word in these discussions. I keep hearing it thrown around with nobody specifying how rolling out ChatGPT to more people makes the world "less safe". It's a laugh line at this point.

>>xiansh+(OP)
How is this a coup? The board is the CEOs boss. If that’s not true then they should have chosen a different corporate structure

>>shmatt+U2
People love celebrating CEOs.

>>shmatt+U2
Some reporting indicates that there was no malfeasance on Sam’s part. There would be no reason to terminate Sam under these circumstances except as a pure power play.

>>shmatt+U2
Sam and Greg were on the board.

This was two board members who were also employed at the company fighting over resources and approach.

>>woeiru+k4
Maybe wait for the facts then?

>>shmatt+U2
It's a boardroom coup. Two-thirds of the board unilaterally fired the other third.

>>shmatt+U2
The fact that the Chairman of the board was not included in the decision is a pretty big indicator

>>shmatt+U2
They're pretty close to having a different corporate structure IMPOSED on them next week.

Spare me the whole "but as a non-profit the board has a responsibility to their mission and charter". Someone has to pay for all those GPUs. If they're going to take a hardline against launching actual products then they can look for donors and see how far they get..

>>ethanb+D4
What, and ruin the entertainment value?

--We the peanut gallery

>>CSMast+n4
But did that start yesterday? Sam knew who his bosses were. Managing up is an important thing unless you think the company is all about you

>>DebtDe+k5
Why would they accept a different corporate structure where they get fired? What do they get out of the deal? Currently, OpenAI is essentially owned by the board as a nonprofit.

>>woeiru+k4
Why isn’t that enough? Bad fit so he’s gone.

They do it to employees yet CEOs are somehow exempt? Ever heard of fire fast?

>>DebtDe+k5
Let's wait for more details on what actually went down.

It's entirely possible Sam was exploring sales or new commercial ventures behind the board's back, or pressuring the business to side-step the oversight and safety mechanisms expected by the overarching non-profit mission. The timing with the dev event is suspect. It sounds like something came out that the board and research organizations were unaware of.

There's no indication that OpenAI wants to terminate existing or future commercial ventures.

>>shmatt+U2
There is a concept of a boardroom coup, which is what this was. The lack of decorum, the unceremonious and abrupt exit at the highest levels including removal of the chairman of the board, and the damning statement implying misconduct are very serious and substantial moves for any board to make, nevertheless one of the size of an org like OpenAI. They did not consult with investors, did not attempt to negotiate with the CEO/ask for a resignation, or anything of the sorts to resemble reasonable process. Usually you retain some form of legal counsel before making such a substantial move, but given the traditionally lax oversight non-profits, it doesn't seem like this is the case.

It's only at the abrupt all-hands meeting they called on a Friday night that it became clear that Ilya Sutskever was at the center of it. He had his disagreements, and pushed the board into making such a abrupt move, and then goes on to say something like "oh I agree it wasn't the ideal way to do it". It's very clear this was a power struggle, not maleficence (per words of OpenAI CTO), from Sam Altman. At least so far, it boils down to ... Ilya didn't like feeling sidelined, so he took things over. And now it's clear the board that sided with (or rubber stamped?) Ilya just wasn't prepared for the consequences.

>>himara+U4
I'd love to have so much job security that two thirds of my employer's board couldn't fire me. :)

>>ethanb+D4
We're not liable to get the facts in an objective and satisfying way here. That makes speculation even less useful, of course. People are liable to pointlessly disagree about what happened here for some time, until (fortunately) people mostly stop thinking about it like with any other gossip.

>>silenc+92
outside speculators extrapolating from second-hand rumors and Twitter vibes aren't making coherent sense? Shocking.

Perhaps it's as simple as insufficient oversight and moderation of the GPT store. Or perhaps there's too much legal risk in the expanding scope of b2c services, which could then threaten the existence of the research organizations. Who knows?

Maybe we should stop treating this like sports ball or politics

>>vkou+q7
It's more like two of your coworkers deciding to fire you without hearing you out.

>>vkou+q7
Democracy is a blunt instrument, for disputes you can't resolve by talking. And the smaller the voting pool the more you can try to reach accomodations rather than the majority imposing on the minority.

The two thirds can undoubtedly do this. But the whole structure is in a bad way if they actually do.

>>himara+y8
The CEO works for the board. He's not an equal.

Two of my managers can absolutely get rid of me without ever hearing me out.

>>vkou+ql
The CEO is part of the board, just like every other board member.

>>shmatt+C5
Again, he was on the board. He didn't have bosses he had peers.

>>loster+V6
The timing makes me think the board inadvertently found something out during or as a result o dev day.

>>vkou+q7
Become an owner? Then you can fire the board.

Sole proprietors have no board at all. Although they have to deal with customers...