zlacker

Isn't Microsoft in breach of contract here? Not by the word (parties hadn't forseen such event, and so there won't be anything about this explicity in the contract). But one could argue that MS isn't acting in good faith and acting counter to the purpose of the agreement with OpenAI.

The argument would go something like this:

MS were contractually obliged to assist OpenAI in their mission. OpenAI fired Altman for what they say is hindering their mission. If MS now hires Altman and gives him the tools he needs, MS is positioning itself as an opponent to OpenAI and its mission.

>>leobg+(OP)
Perhaps. Could be tied up in court for 2-3 years before we find out.

>>leobg+(OP)
> MS is positioning itself as an opponent to OpenAI

They were positioned that way by the OpenAI board, which has effectively committed corporate suicide and won’t be around much longer.

>>leobg+(OP)
Microsoft does not prevent OpenAI from achieving their mission. OpenAI does not bind Microsoft to behave one way or another.

>>vaxman+G7
I am sure Sutskever knows openai as an economically competitive entity has been living on borrowed time. this is a global arms race and this tech will bleed out everywhere. implementing LLMs is not rocket science per se and there are multiple places in the world this work can be done.

the bottleneck right now is mostly compute I think, and openai does not have the resources or expertise to allieviate that bottleneck on a timescale that can save them.

>>leobg+(OP)
Since the board was never clear what Altman did, you could make flip the parties and your breach of contract argument holds about as much water. Plus MS can resort to the playground "they started it" argument.