zlacker

Sorry but that is ridiculous. The wording of the PR blurb is not what makes gears move in a giant like Microsoft.

I agree the board did botch this up. But this is in my view is a vindication of their being amateurs at corporate political games, that is all.

But this also means that Sam Altman’s “vision” and Microsoft’s bottom line are fully aligned, and that is not a reassuring thought. Microsoft one hears (see “5 foot pole”) even puts ads in their freaking OS.

This board should man up, and lawyer up.

>>383210+(OP)
A PR blurb? What? I mean Satya himself, behind the scenes.

>>gkober+v
“I think they could have won in the court of public opinion if their press release said they loved Sam but felt like his skills and ambitions diverged from their mission. But instead, they tried to skewer him, and it backfired completely.”

^^

I don’t think the wording of the “press release” is an issue.

This is a split over an actual matter to differ about: a genuine fork in the road in terms of pace and development of AI products, and, a CEO which apparently did not keep the board informed as it pursued a direction they feel is contrary to the mission statement of this non-profit.

The board could have done this in the most gracious of manners, but it would not have made a bit of difference.

On one side we have the hyper rich investor “grow grow grow” crowd and their attendant cult of personality wunderkind and his or her project, and on the other side bunch of geeky idealists who want to be thoughtful in the development of what is undeniably a world changing technology for mankind.

>>383210+w3
You're (willfully, I think?) conflating two things.

However, the way they told the public (anti-Sam blog post) and the way they told Microsoft (one minute before the press release) were both fumbles that separately could have played out differently if the board knew what they were doing.