Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI negotiations to reinstate Altman hit snag over board role

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 596 posts

Re: OpenAI negotiations to reinstate Altman hit snag over board role

#321

Post by jxi »

jasonhansel wrote: post #180
dnissley wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly it was the other way around this time, at least to start...

This was pretty clearly an attempt by the board to reassert control, which was slowly slipping away as the company became more enmeshed with Microsoft.

I'm not trying to throw undeserved shade, but why do we think this is something as complex as that and not just plain incompetence? Especially given the cloak and daggers firing without consulting or notifying any of their partners beforehand. That's just immaturity.

Re: OpenAI negotiations to reinstate Altman hit snag over board role

#322

Post by yeck »

aeonik wrote: post #289
AmericanOP wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Openness in the context of AI is not straightforward. The open source folks read it one way, and the alignment people read it another. It is entirely possible a program that spits out the complete code for a nuclear targeting system should not be released in the wild.

Nuclear codes, assuming they are using modern cryptography would not be spat out by any AI, unless they were leaked publicly. Bigger concern would be the construction of a bomb, which, still, takes a lot of hard to hide resources. I'm more worried about other kinds of weapons, but at the same time I really don't like the idea of censoring the science of nature from people. I think the only long term option is to beef…

I feel that people have a right to life and liberty, but liberty does not mean access to god-like powers.

There are many people that would do great things with god-like powers, but more than enough that would be terrible.

Re: OpenAI negotiations to reinstate Altman hit snag over board role

#323

Post by Herring »

tsunamifury wrote: post #283
pkaye wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't Mozilla run the same way with for-profit under a non-profit?

How’d that work out for them?

Looks fine to me, man. I asked chatGPT to summarize this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation) in the context of your question

Mozilla Corporation's Experience

*Challenges and Adaptation:* Mozilla Corporation has faced financial challenges, leading to restructuring and strategic shifts. This includes layoffs, closing offices, and diversifying into new ventures, such as acquiring Fakespot in 2023

*Dependence on Key Partnerships:* Its heavy reliance on partnerships like the one with Google for revenue has been both a strength and a vulnerability, necessitating adaptations to changing market conditions and partner strategies

*Evolution and Resilience:* Despite challenges, Mozilla Corporation has shown resilience, adapting to market changes and evolving its strategies to sustain its mission, demonstrating the effectiveness of its governance model within the context of its organizational goals and the broader technology ecosystem

In conclusion, while both OpenAI and Mozilla Corporation have navigated unique paths within the tech sector, their distinct governance structures illustrate different approaches to balancing mission-driven goals with operational sustainability and market responsiveness.

Re: OpenAI negotiations to reinstate Altman hit snag over board role

#324

Post by yeck »

Davidzheng wrote: post #200
jasonhansel wrote: post #173

This is why, when you claim to be running a non-profit to "benefit humankind," you shouldn't put all your resources into a for-profit subsidiary. Eventually, the for-profit arm, and its investors, will find its nonprofit parent a hindrance, and an insular board of directors won't stand a chance against corporate titans.

Worst part is their own employees don't care about the non profits value

I suspect some do and some don't. Hard to know what the ratio is.

Re: OpenAI negotiations to reinstate Altman hit snag over board role

#325

Post by kyle_grove »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #51
kranke155 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any way he can even stay if Altman returns? Seems like one of them is out and making their own AI venture soon.

Make him the same offer he made Brockman - you can stay on as an employee but you're off the board.

That will keep him employed for the three nanoseconds until he gets an offer from a competitor.

Re: OpenAI negotiations to reinstate Altman hit snag over board role

#326

Post by Aeolun »

lucubratory wrote: post #187
foobarqux wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other question is what happens to the pretense of "safety". The CEO explicitly said multiple times that he does not have unilateral control, that he is subordinate to the board and that the board's job was to remove him if it he was pursuing an unsafe course. Assuming he gets re-instated that would all be shown to be false.

Yeah, a $2.8Tn tech company and a venture capitalist's network managing to overturn the non-profit Board's completely legal action (legally required of the Board, even) they took in furtherance of their Charter would be the ultimate practical demonstration that no legal structure, not even those specifically designed to do so, is above what capital wants. It's their world, we're just living in it, and they want to ma…

Just because something is legal does not mean it is right. If they’d spent a week talking with him and ultimately couldn’t resolve their differences and then fired him that would be one thing.

Re: OpenAI negotiations to reinstate Altman hit snag over board role

#327

Post by sethherr »

junofan wrote: post #292
keerthiko wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I think a significantly better approach would have been to vote for the elaboration of a "checks and balances" structure to OpenAI as it grew in capabilities and influence. Internal to the entire OpenAI org, sounds like all we had was just the for-profit arm board of directors. Externally, you can add investors and public opinion (basically defaults to siding with the for-profit arm). I wish they worked towa…

Why would any employee put up with that? Why not go work somewhere else that better aligns with what you want?

What is it that you want that this doesn’t offer?

Re: OpenAI negotiations to reinstate Altman hit snag over board role

#328

Post by zitterbewegung »

jasonhansel wrote: post #173

This is why, when you claim to be running a non-profit to "benefit humankind," you shouldn't put all your resources into a for-profit subsidiary. Eventually, the for-profit arm, and its investors, will find its nonprofit parent a hindrance, and an insular board of directors won't stand a chance against corporate titans.

Don’t be evil.

Re: OpenAI negotiations to reinstate Altman hit snag over board role

#329

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

stingraycharles wrote: post #295
shivawu wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. This incident has proven MSFT’s strong hands without a board seat and they don’t really need it if things do/did go off the rails.

Isn’t the point that if MSFT had a board seat, this whole problem likely wouldn’t have happened in the first place?

Not necessarily. They still would have needed to have a majority of board seats on their side - I mean, Brockman was chairman of the board and he didn't find out about all this until the machinations were complete.

Read a good a article about the history of the OpenAI board that argued this all went down due to the recent loss of 3 board members, bringing total board membership from 9 to 6 (including losses like Reid Hoffman, who never would have voted for something like this), and Altman wanted to increase board membership again. Likely the "Gang of Four" here saw this as their slim window to change the direction of OpenAI.

Re: OpenAI negotiations to reinstate Altman hit snag over board role

#330

Post by silenced_trope »

jasonhansel wrote: post #173

This is why, when you claim to be running a non-profit to "benefit humankind," you shouldn't put all your resources into a for-profit subsidiary. Eventually, the for-profit arm, and its investors, will find its nonprofit parent a hindrance, and an insular board of directors won't stand a chance against corporate titans.

> This is why, when you claim to be running a non-profit to "benefit humankind," you shouldn't put all your resources into a for-profit subsidiary.

To be frank, they need to really spell out what "benefitting mankind" is. How is it measured? Or is it measured? Or is it just "the board says this isn't doing that so it's not doing that"?

It's honestly a silly slogan.

Post reply on HN