zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. lolind+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-03-01 16:40:39
Officially, yes, but the whole situation with Altman's firing and rehiring showed that the donors can exert quite a bit of control if their interests are threatened.
replies(1): >>jprete+Fg
◧
2. jprete+Fg[view] [source] 2024-03-01 17:56:04
>>lolind+(OP)
That wasn't the donors' doing at all, though. If anything it was an illustration of the powerlessness of the donors and the non-profit structure without the force of law backing it up.
replies(1): >>lolind+2h
◧◩
3. lolind+2h[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-03-01 17:57:35
>>jprete+Fg
Microsoft is the single largest donor by a wide margin, and they were absolutely pulling the strings in that incident.
replies(1): >>jprete+nj
◧◩◪
4. jprete+nj[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-03-01 18:07:29
>>lolind+2h
Did they donate, or did they buy equity in the for-profit arm? I thought it was the latter, and that Azure credits were part of that deal?
[go to top]