zlacker

[parent] [thread] 8 comments
1. rjtava+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-20 08:52:19
This whole weekend will probably be a case study in both Corporate Governance (Microsoft may look bad here for not anticipating the problem) and Negotiation (a masterclass by Satya: gave Ilya what he wanted and got most of OpenAI's commercial potential anyway).
replies(2): >>jacque+l4 >>layer8+lh
2. jacque+l4[view] [source] 2023-11-20 09:17:37
>>rjtava+(OP)
As much as I dislike Microsoft: they played this exactly right. No boardseat: no culpability or conflict of interest, catch the falling pieces and reposition themselves stronger. What makes you say they didn't anticipate the problem? If they had anticipated it I don't see what else they could have done without making themselves part of the problem.
replies(2): >>rjtava+s7 >>tonyed+Sg
◧◩
3. rjtava+s7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:35:30
>>jacque+l4
I based that opinion on two news that came out:

1. When they invested in Open AI it had a more mature board (in particular Reid Hoffman) and afterwards they lost a few members without replacing them. That was probably something Microsoft could have influenced without making themselves part of the problem.

2. They received a call one minute before the decision was made public. That shouldn't happen to a partner that owns 49% of the company you just fired a CEO from.

Sources:

1 - https://loeber.substack.com/p/a-timeline-of-the-openai-board

2 - https://www.axios.com/2023/11/17/microsoft-openai-sam-altman...

replies(1): >>jacque+39
◧◩◪
4. jacque+39[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:45:04
>>rjtava+s7
Yes, but both of those are not Microsoft's doing but the OpenAI board's doing. You don't just get to name someone to a board without the board to agree to it and normally this happens as a condition of for instance an investment or partnership.

Nadella was rightly furious about this, the tail wagged the dog there. And this isn't over yet: you can expect a lot of change on the OpenAI side.

replies(1): >>rjtava+4g
◧◩◪◨
5. rjtava+4g[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 10:31:08
>>jacque+39
Buying 49% of a company is a risky deal. You better make sure the other 51% have good governance.
replies(1): >>jacque+4X
◧◩
6. tonyed+Sg[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 10:38:20
>>jacque+l4
>reposition themselves stronger.

We don't know that yet.

replies(1): >>jacque+Is1
7. layer8+lh[view] [source] 2023-11-20 10:41:32
>>rjtava+(OP)
Didn’t the negotiations fail?
◧◩◪◨⬒
8. jacque+4X[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 14:23:29
>>rjtava+4g
Yes, that probably was a mistake, it should have come with more protections. But I haven't seen any documents on the governance other than what is in the media now and there is a fair chance that MS did have various protections but that the board simply ignored those.
◧◩◪
9. jacque+Is1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 17:04:51
>>tonyed+Sg
I can't see it in any other way.
[go to top]