zlacker

I'm having trouble imagining the level of conceit required to think that those three by their lonesome have it right when pretty much all of the company is on the other side of the ledger, and those are the people that stand to lose more. Incredible, really. The hubris.

>>jacque+(OP)
I'm baffled by the idea that a bunch of people who have a massive personal financial stake in the company, who were hired more for their ability than alignment, being against a move that potentially (potentially) threatens their stake and are willing to move to Microsoft, of all places, must necessarily be in the right.

The hubris, indeed.

>>throwc+sd
Well, they have that right. But the board has unclean hands to put it mildly and seems to have been obsessed with their own affairs more than with the end result for OpenAI which is against everything a competent board should have stood for. So they had better pop an amazing rabbit of a reason out of their high hat or it is going to end in tears. You can't just kick the porcelain cupboard like this from the position of a board member without consequences if you do not have a very valid reason, and that reason needs to be twice as good if there is a perceived conflict of interest.

>>jacque+(OP)
It may not have anything to do with conceit, it could just be that they have very different objectives. OpenAI set up this board as a check on everyone who has a financial incentive in the enterprise. To me the only strange thing is that it wasn't handled more diplomatically, but then I have no idea if the board was warning Altman for a long time and then just blew their top.

>>jasonf+rF
Diplomacy is one thing, the lack of preparation is what I find interesting. It looks as if this was all cooked up either on the spur of the moment or because a window of opportunity opened (possibly the reduced quorum in the board). If not that I really don't understand the lack of prepwork, firing a CEO normally comes with a well established playbook.

>>jacque+(OP)
> pretty much all of the company is on the other side of the ledger

The current position of others may have much more to do with power than their personal judgments. Altman, Microsoft, their friends and partners, wield a lot of power over the their future careers.

> Incredible, really. The hubris.

I read that as mocking them for daring to challenge that power structure, and on a possibly critical societal issue.

>>jacque+cI
This analysis I agree with. How could they not anticipate this outcome, at least as a serious possibility? If inexperienced, didn't they have someone to advise them? The stakes are too high for noobs to just sit down and start playing poker.

>>wolver+Ue1
People that grow up insulated from the consequences of their actions can do very dumb stuff and expect to get away with it because that's how they've lived all of their lives. I'm not sure about the background of any of the OpenAI board members but that would be one possible explanation about why they accepted a board seat while being incompetent to do so in the first place. I was offered board seats twice but refused on account of me not having sufficient experience in such matters and besides I don't think I have the right temperament. People with fewer inhibitions and more self confidence might have accepted. I also didn't like the liability picture, you'd have to be extremely certain about your votes not to ever incur residual liability.

>>jacque+BH2
> I was offered board seats twice but refused on account of me not having sufficient experience in such matters and besides I don't think I have the right temperament.

Yes, know thyself. I've turned down offers that seemed lucrative or just cooperative, and otherwise without risk - boards, etc. They would have been fine if everything went smoothly, but people naturally don't anticipate over-the-horizon risk and if any stuff hit a fan I would not have been able to fulfill my responsibilities, and others would get materially hurt - the most awful, painful, humiliating trap to be in. Only need one experience to learn that lesson.

> People that grow up insulated from the consequences of their actions can do very dumb stuff and expect to get away with it because that's how they've lived all of their lives.

I don't think you need to grow up that way. Look at the uber-powerful who have been been in that position or a few years.

Honestly, I'm not sure I buy the idea that's a prevelant case, the people who grow up that way. People generally leave the nest and learn. Most of the world's higher-level leaders (let's say, successful CEOs and up) grew up in stability and relative wealth. Of course, that doesn't mean their parents didn't teach them about consequences, but how could we really know that about someone?