zlacker

[parent] [thread] 12 comments
1. stetra+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-22 15:34:10
Imagine if the board of Apple fired Tim Cook with no warning right after he went on stage and announced their new developer platform updates for the year alongside record growth and sales, refused to elaborate as to the reasons or provide any useful communications to investors over several days, and replaced their first interim CEO with another interim CEO from a completely different kind of business in that same weekend.

If you don't think there would be a shareholder revolt against the board, for simply exercising their most fundamental right to fire the CEO, I think you're missing part the picture.

replies(3): >>hacker+C6 >>jacque+yC >>eksaps+pD
2. hacker+C6[view] [source] 2023-11-22 16:04:13
>>stetra+(OP)
It is prudent to recall that enhancing shareholder value and delivering record growth and sales are NOT the mission of the company or Board. But now it appears that it will have to be.
replies(3): >>ketzo+kn >>stetra+zu >>pauldd+mo1
◧◩
3. ketzo+kn[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 17:20:52
>>hacker+C6
Yeah, but they also didn't elaborate in the slightest about how they were serving the charter with their actions.

If they were super-duper worried about how Sam was going to cause a global extinction event with AI, or even just that he was driving the company in too commercial of a direction, they should have said that to everyone!

The idea that they could fire the CEO with a super vague, one-paragraph statement, and then expect 800 employees who respect that CEO to just... be totally fine with that is absolutely fucking insane, regardless of the board's fiduciary responsibilities. They're board members, not gods.

replies(1): >>NanoYo+UK
◧◩
4. stetra+zu[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 17:51:31
>>hacker+C6
Sure, there is a difference there. But the actions that erode confidence are the same.

You could tell the same story about a rising sports team replacing their star coach, or a military sacking a general the day after he marched through the streets to fanfare after winning a battle.

Even without the money involved, a sudden change in leadership with no explanation, followed only by increasing uncertainty and cloudy communication, is not going to go well for those who are backing you.

Even in the most altruistic version of OpenAI's goals I'm fairly sure they need employees and funding to pay those employees and do the research.

5. jacque+yC[view] [source] 2023-11-22 18:23:38
>>stetra+(OP)
You forgot: and offered the company for a bag of peanuts to Microsoft.
6. eksaps+pD[view] [source] 2023-11-22 18:27:47
>>stetra+(OP)
no but the people like the developers, clients, government etc. have also the right to exercise their revolt against decisions they don't like as well. don't you think?

like, you get me, the board of directors is not the only actual power within a company, and that was proven by the whole scandal of Sam being discarded/fired that was made by the developers themselves. they also have the right to exercise their right to just not work at this company without the leader they may had liked.

replies(1): >>stetra+ZU
◧◩◪
7. NanoYo+UK[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 18:57:06
>>ketzo+kn
They don't have to elaborate. As many have pointed out, most people have been given advice to not say anything at all when SHTF. If they did say something there would still be drama. It's best to keep these details internal.

I still believe in the theory that Altman was going hard after profits. Both McCauley and Toner are focused on the altruistic aspects of AGI and safety. Altman shouldn't be at OpenAI and neither should D’Angelo.

replies(2): >>ketzo+lR >>stetra+hU
◧◩◪◨
8. ketzo+lR[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 19:27:50
>>NanoYo+UK
Okay, keep silent to save your own ass, fine

But why would anyone expect 800 people to risk their livelihoods and work without a little serious justification? This was an inevitable reaction.

replies(1): >>muraka+os1
◧◩◪◨
9. stetra+hU[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 19:42:14
>>NanoYo+UK
> They don't have to elaborate.

Sure, they don't have to. How did that work out?

Four CEOs in five days, their largest partner stepping in to try to stop the chaos, and almost the entirety of their employees threatening to leave for guaranteed jobs at that partner if the board didn't step down.

◧◩
10. stetra+ZU[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 19:45:23
>>eksaps+pD
Right. I really should have said employees and investors. Even if OpenAI somehow had no regard for its investors, they still need their employees to accomplish their mission. And funding to pay those employees.

The board seemed to have the confidence of none of the groups they needed confidence from.

◧◩
11. pauldd+mo1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 22:17:15
>>hacker+C6
> enhancing shareholder value and delivering record growth and sales are NOT the mission of the company

Developer platform updates seem to be inline.

And in any case, the board also failed to specify how their action furthered the mission of the company.

From all appearances, it appeared to damage the mission of the company. (If for no other reason that it dissolve the company and gave everything to MSFT.)

◧◩◪◨⬒
12. muraka+os1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 22:40:33
>>ketzo+lR
I think it's important to keep in mind that BOTH Altman and the board maneuvered to threaten to destroy OpenAI.

If Altman was silent and/or said something like "people take some time off for Thanksgiving, in a week calmer minds will prevail" while negotiating behind the scenes, OpenAI would look a lot less dire in the last few days. Instead he launched a public pressure campaign, likely pressured Mira, got Satya to make some fake commitments, got Greg Bockman's wife to emotionally pressure Ilya, etc.

Masterful chess, clearly. But playing people like pieces nonetheless.

replies(1): >>pauldd+s54
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
13. pauldd+s54[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-23 19:12:51
>>muraka+os1
Why couldn't those people have acted on their own judgement?
[go to top]