zlacker

> It's important that the board be relatively independent and able to fire the CEO if he attempts to deviate from the mission.

They did fire him, and it didn't work. Sam effectively became "too big to fire."

I'm sure it will be framed as a compromise, but how can this be anything but a collapse of the board's power over the commercial OpenAI arm? The threat of firing was the enforcement mechanism, and its been spent.

>>brucet+(OP)
Well it depends on who's on the new board and what they believe. If Altman, Greg, and MSFT do not have direct representation on the new board there would still be a check against his decisions

>>altpad+61
Why? The only check is to fire the CEO. He is un-firable. May as well have a board of one, at least someone cannot point to the non-profit and claim "it is a non-profit and can fire me if I am diviated from the mission".

>>brucet+(OP)
> They did fire him, and it didn't work. Sam effectively became "too big to fire."

To be fair, this attempt at firing was extremely hasty, non transparent and inconsistent.

>>brucet+(OP)
Sam lost his board representation as a result of all this (though maybe that's temporary).

I believe the goal of the opposing faction was mainly to avoid Sam dominating board and they achieved that, which is why they've accepted the results.

After more opinions come out, I'm guessing Sam's side won't look as strong, and he'll become "fireable" again.

>>thih9+P2
And poorly timed.

If they'd made their move a few months ago when he was out scanning retinas in Kenya they might have had more success.

>>brucet+(OP)
they lost trust in him because apparently part of the funding he secured was directly tied to his position at openAI. kind of a big red flag. The microsoft 10 billion investment allegedly had a clause that Sam Altman had to stay or it would be renegotiated

allegedly again, the board wanted Sam to stop doing this, and now he was trying to do the same thing with some saudi investors, or actually already did it behind their back, i dont know

>>liuliu+G2
IRS requires a nonprofit to have a minimum of three board members for such reasons.

>>dacryn+z9
Do you have a source for either of these things? The only thing I heard about Saudi investors was related to the (presumably separate) chip startup.