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

OpenAI investors keep pushing for Sam Altman’s return

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 272 posts

Re: OpenAI investors keep pushing for Sam Altman’s return

#51

Post by 15457345234 »

jacquesm wrote: post #39
righthand wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the board is under any pressure. If they don’t do anything else they just need the employees to fold on their threat to resign. Even if the employees resign, ChatGPT is still running and there are lots of people willing to take the defecting employees spots. The only thing they are pressured on is to fill in the story for the media point of view which is irrelevant to the actual functioning of OpenAI.

> I don’t think the board is under any pressure. Ok, you have a higher threshold for the use of the word pressure than I do. > If they don’t do anything else they just need the employees to fold on their threat to resign. Even if the employees resign, ChatGPT is still running and there are lots of people willing to take the defecting employees spots. I wouldn't be so sure of that. > The only thing they are pressured…

> I wouldn't be so sure of that.

Given that a bunch of the staff are acting like they're Heavens Gate members you also expect them to sabotage it? Or literally have a flavor-aid session in the office?

> Their investors, employees and donors might disagree with that.

Nobody wants to invest in a personality cult that's sworn an oath of fealty to one guy, dude. That's basically flushing money down the toilet, as this fiasco demonstrates. These lunatics are ready to sacrifice their children on twitter. You cannot work with people like that!

Re: OpenAI investors keep pushing for Sam Altman’s return

#52

Post by clhodapp »

phpnode wrote: post #30
jacquesm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> given a high legal risk if it hires a majority of OpenAI employees What legal risk would that be? All they have to do is to claim that they are protecting their interests, besides it is not as if Microsoft has ever been afraid of a legal challenge.

MS and OpenAI certainly have non-solicitation clauses in their contracts. MS could afford the legal battle but isn't it better for them to wait it out and see what happens first?

Non-solicitation agreements are like super-illegal in California. See the "wage fixing" case against Apple, Google, Adobe, Pixar, Intuit, and Intel.

Re: OpenAI investors keep pushing for Sam Altman’s return

#54

Post by agloe_dreams »

jacquesm wrote: post #18
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if Microsoft owning 49% of OpenAI vastly simplifies such a situation. Or maybe further complexifies it. It's fascinating to watch, anyway.

All they need is another 2% and at a measly two billion that would be an easy settlement. The board members get to save face and Satya is off to the races, employees happy, investors happy. It could easily happen.

What is interesting is that Sam noted that OpenAI board should go after his shares if he were to go off on the company...which implies some sort of ownership that others had no prior knowledge of.

What's the over-under of his shares being more than 2%?

Re: OpenAI investors keep pushing for Sam Altman’s return

#55

Post by gjsman-1000 »

agloe_dreams wrote: post #45
phpnode wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MS and OpenAI certainly have non-solicitation clauses in their contracts. MS could afford the legal battle but isn't it better for them to wait it out and see what happens first?

https://twitter.com/kevin_scott/status/1726971608706031670 Uh..the CTO of MS saying he will match OAI pay and will support their mutiny uh...definitely is solicitation.

The letter from OpenAI employees to the board expressly says:

"We, the undersigned, may choose to resign from OpenAl and join the newly announced Microsoft subsidiary run by Sam Altman and Greg Brockman. Microsoft has assured us that there are positions for all OpenAl employees at this new subsidiary should we choose to join."

I think it's safe to say there probably isn't any non-solicitation clause; or at least, it's a very weak one or specific one that Microsoft isn't violating (i.e. you won't reach out over LinkedIn).

Re: OpenAI investors keep pushing for Sam Altman’s return

#56

Post by mjirv »

phpnode wrote: post #30
jacquesm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> given a high legal risk if it hires a majority of OpenAI employees What legal risk would that be? All they have to do is to claim that they are protecting their interests, besides it is not as if Microsoft has ever been afraid of a legal challenge.

MS and OpenAI certainly have non-solicitation clauses in their contracts. MS could afford the legal battle but isn't it better for them to wait it out and see what happens first?

Unlikely. Non-poaching agreements are illegal under federal antitrust law.

Re: OpenAI investors keep pushing for Sam Altman’s return

#57

Post by jacquesm »

phpnode wrote: post #30
jacquesm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> given a high legal risk if it hires a majority of OpenAI employees What legal risk would that be? All they have to do is to claim that they are protecting their interests, besides it is not as if Microsoft has ever been afraid of a legal challenge.

MS and OpenAI certainly have non-solicitation clauses in their contracts. MS could afford the legal battle but isn't it better for them to wait it out and see what happens first?

I've yet to see a more clear example of solicitation and MS is very much out front with this, presumably their ability to protect their interest in OpenAI outweighs the risk that the competition (Google, etc) would snap up the employees. Think of it as a stop-gap move to ensure that people won't leave and it looks different already. If there is any legal risk (which I doubt) then it is more than offset by their most simple excuse to ignore it, besides the legalities involving non-poaching agreements to begin with.

Re: OpenAI investors keep pushing for Sam Altman’s return

#59

Post by 15457345234 »

jacquesm wrote: post #47
15457345234 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does anybody know who is currently CEO of OpenAI? Emmett Shear. Altman won't be back. Investors like success and returns but they don't like companies where all the employees have basically sworn out an oath of fealty to the CEO, as it means they (the investors) have basically no control over anything.

Shear won't last. > Investors like success and returns but they don't like companies where all the employees have basically sworn out an oath of fealty to the CEO, as it means they (the investors) have basically no control over anything. Investors love such companies. I, as an investor would love such a company, as long as I was sure that the CEO would stay. Investors tend to not have control over much of anything an…

> I, as an investor would love such a company, as long as I was sure that the CEO would stay.

As an investor you have no way of obtaining that surety. So, you would not love this company.

> But the better interpretation is that the people there have said "we are not loyal to the board" rather than that they are more loyal to Altman

Dude they're retweeting heart emojis and carrying water in _the most disturbing_ fashion on twitter. They're 100% declaring that they're his personal army, ride or die. I don't know how you aren't seeing this. It's completely abnormal behaviour for adults.

Re: OpenAI investors keep pushing for Sam Altman’s return

#60

Post by martingalex2 »

robomartin wrote: post #27

How does someone come back without being livid about what just happened? Without giving it much thought, my first impulse would be that every single person who participated in the ousting would have to resign and go away immediately. I cannot conceive of any way to clear the air and approach the work to be done with a clear mental state. Too vindictive or appropriately restorative?

I'm interested in whether this has potential trickle effect in other startups where the staff threaten to mutiny if they don't like the change in leadership. Flipping crazy and precedent setting for corporate governance.
Post reply on HN