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

Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 625 posts

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#411

Post by Manuel_D »

sudosysgen wrote: post #370
Manuel_D wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human biodiversity is an empirical fact. Are some populations taller than other, on average? Is red hair more prevalent in certain populations? Pretty much nobody actually rejects the idea of human biodiversity. The neo reactionary types tend to draw specific conclusions from the idea of human biodiversity, like that racial disparities in IQ are inherent and not environmental. That's a conclusion I don't think is in…

When Moldbug says HBD, he isn't saying "not all humans have exactly the same genes". HBD has a specific meaning in that context and the meaning is that some races are superior to others. That is specifically what Moldbug says when he talks about HBD, and SSC's author knows that well.

I don't doubt that Yarvin has racist views. I do take issue with people insisting that Scott agrees with Yarvin by mere virtue of association, despite the Scott's clear explicit refutations of neo reactionaries.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#412

Post by wnoise »

jacquesm wrote: post #397
comp_throw7 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed the part where Sam apparently tried to get Toner off the board first, which would probably be sufficient justification for removing him as CEO (if the story is as described, i.e. it was on a silly pretext).

It's covered. Second line.

It's covered with a vague line that would also cover merely having a disagreement with.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#413

Post by alex_young »

This is the most amazing part of the article imo:

  Ms. Toner disagreed. The board’s mission is to ensure that the company creates artificial intelligence that “benefits all of humanity,” and if the company was destroyed, she said, that could be consistent with its mission. In the board’s view, OpenAI would be stronger without Mr. Altman.
Corporate suicidal ideation.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#414

Post by crazygringo »

baking wrote: post #374
next_xibalba wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those credits equate to billions of $ in real compute expense for MSFT.

I would hope that a billion in credits would not represent a billion in expenses for Microsoft.

They're giving up all the profits from whoever they would have been sold to otherwise.

So it adds up the same.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#415

Post by zucker42 »

avarun wrote: post #118
jjulius wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nearly everyone on OpenAI board is young, inexperienced and unqualified to be on the board of one of the most important companies on the planet. Jumping off of that, I'm genuinely curious what, in Sam's resume, suggests he should be in charge of "one of the most important companies on the planet".

The fact that he's a founder and the one that made it "one of the most important companies on the planet"?

Classic CEO worship. There's no reason to believe that he's more important than many of the other key figures in the company.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#416

Post by sanxiyn »

losvedir wrote: post #402
gwern wrote: post #203

None of the comments thus far seem to clearly explain why this matters. Let me summarize the implications: Sam Altman expelling Toner with the pretext of an inoffensive page ( https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-Decoding... ) in a paper no one read* would have given him a temporary majority with which to appoint a replacement director, and then further replacement directors. These directors would, nat…

This is really interesting. It makes perfect sense that they weren't sitting at 6 board members for 9 months because Sam and the others didn't see the implications, but because they saw them all too well and were gridlocked. But then it gets interesting inferring things from there. Obviously sama and gdb were on one side (call it team Speed), and Helen Toner on the other (team Safety). I think McCauley is with Toner…

Maybe Sam wanted to redirect Ilya's GPUs to ChatGPT after DevDay surge. 20% of OpenAI's GPUs are allocated to Ilya's team.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#417

Post by cycomanic »

paulddraper wrote: post #157
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sam wanted to restrict Helen's free expression on the topic of beneficial AI in order to boost OpenAI's position. That suggests he cares more about the success of OpenAI than he does upholding the charter.

No, Sam wanted to be the first recipient of Helen's expression. So -- if appropriate -- he could make changes. Or he could not change, and she publishes anyway.

Let's recall the CEO is employed by the board, not the other way around.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#418

Post by kickopotomus »

15457345234 wrote: post #396
kickopotomus wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I never said that her role is to "cheerlead". Refraining from public disparaging remarks is not a big ask for a board member. Especially if those thoughts were not first brought before the board, which is where such disputes should be resolved. > Also I never said they had an 'advisory' board From your comment: "...it's absolutely the role of advisory board members to continue their work". Not sure how someone is…

> Not sure how someone is meant to parse that Someone is meant to use context and understand that when the context clearly refers to someone who is well known to be a member of the board of directors, 'advisory board member' means that they are a board member in an advisory role, aka a nonexec. That assumes that someone is familiar with the structure and makeup of boards of directors. It's a bit rude to participate i…

> 'advisory board member' means that they are a board member in an advisory role, aka a nonexec

No, those are not synonyms. Advisory boards are distinct from the board of directors. Advisory board members have roles similar to what you alluded to in your original comment and do not have fiduciary duties, hence my confusion.

Non-exec board members are not involved with day-to-day business operations but their fiduciary duties are no different than exec members.

Language has meaning. Don't insult others for your own clumsy usage.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#419

Post by cpncrunch »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #401
skygazer wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides explaining the haphazardness, that would also nicely explain why they didn't want to elaborate publicly on why they "had" to let him go -- "it was either him or us" wouldn't have been popular given his seeming popularity.

I suspect his popularity is mostly about employees who want to maintain the value of their equity: https://nitter.net/JacquesThibs/status/1727134087176204410#m Wild guess: If the board stands its ground, appoints a reasonable new CEO, and employees understand that OpenAI will continue to be a hot startup, most of them will stay with the company due to their equity

Except, the facts behind Sam's firing will inevitably come out, and it won't be possible to brush it under the carpet. I think they hoped the facts wouldn't come out, and they could just give a hand-wavey explanation, but that's clearly not going to happen. It seems they have well and truly shot themselves in the feet, and they will likely have to be replaced now.

Re: Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

#420

Post by negandnek »

usehand wrote: post #392
comp_throw7 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "They had to fire Sam, because he was trying to take over the board". I mean, yes? The board is explicitly there to replace the CEO if necessary. If the CEO stuffs the board full of their allies, it can no longer do that. > First: most boards are accountable to something other than themselves. For the exact reason that it pre-empts that type of nonsense. Boards of for-profits are accountable to shareholders because…

if thats the case why didnt they just stuff the board when they had the chance?

I think it’s also mentioned the article that they have failed to add new members to the board due to the disagreement between the board members.
Post reply on HN