Earlier quoted context omitted.
This guy Children of Dunes
The Golden Path awaits
I don't understand a single word in this thread
OpenAI board reappoints Altman and adds three other directors
271–280 of 324 posts
Re: OpenAI board reappoints Altman and adds three other directors
#272I'm not necessarily saying they're wrong, but there's really no way to put out a release like this without a "history is written by the victors" vibe coming across.
He pretty clearly won. There's not much to it. A huge chunk of the company went into open revolt and he got a competing offer that threatened to recruit all of them. There's nothing really underhanded or sneaky about it: the board drastically overplayed their hand, and all Altman and Brockman had to do was say "I call". To use the parlance of this community of people: people's priors here all seem to be that somethin…
[dead]
Re: OpenAI board reappoints Altman and adds three other directors
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
He pretty clearly won. There's not much to it. A huge chunk of the company went into open revolt and he got a competing offer that threatened to recruit all of them. There's nothing really underhanded or sneaky about it: the board drastically overplayed their hand, and all Altman and Brockman had to do was say "I call". To use the parlance of this community of people: people's priors here all seem to be that somethin…
Or the more cynical take that this is the natural course all parties take when they discover themselves atop a large pile of money. The board was just outmaneuvered.
It's self-defeating though. AI tools fundamentally require trust, because the tool functions as a colleague, editor, partner or friend.
A good way to think of it is as the embodiment of its creator. That's OpenAI, and because Sam and the whole staff have publicly acted in what we'll call a "controversial" manner that is in serious tension with the common good of all humanity, folks rightly should view OpenAI's AI black box untrustworthy, a snake oil.
Maybe the AI will habitually pit you against your trusted colleagues when doing so might be profitable to OpenAI staff, the way Sam did. Maybe the AI will claim to be altruistic and then once it's achieved a position of trust it will, when you are most vulnerable, function decisively against users' needs and goals the way OpenAI staff acted against their managers in the OpenAI board.
These people are selling trust when they have decisively demonstrated they are unworthy of it. There are entire professions built on trust that demonstrate this is not a "natural" course, it is instead a path to long-term irrelevance.
Re: OpenAI board reappoints Altman and adds three other directors
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they did nothing Sam Altman would have won, since their job is to reign in Sam Altman when he goes out of bounds of the original mission.
Exactly. MSFT is who won here. I highly recommend you all watch OpenAI section of the new ALL-IN Podcast. Sam and OpenAI is in a very bad situation if Elon gets heard by a fair judge.
A 'fair judge'? You mean one that applies the law? Most of the experts I've seen say the case has no chance. Or are you saying this is another 4d chess move like what happened with Twitter?
Re: OpenAI board reappoints Altman and adds three other directors
#275Interesting they chose 3 more left leaning board members. Surprising an AI-focused company wouldn't have more diversity of perspective at the governance level.
What things do you think a conservative board member would bring that's currently missing? A distaste for big government? Interest in trickle-down economics? Or is this just a weird way of saying OpenAI should be more comfortable indulging in racism and homophobia? Because there's one "right-leaning" major AI (Grok), and as far as I can tell that's the only differentiating feature.
Just stopping by to say that this type of post is absolutely obnoxious and embarrassing for you.
Re: OpenAI board reappoints Altman and adds three other directors
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I doubt there’s a precedent for a CEO of a “non-profit” effectively answerable to no-one and able to use it as their personal fiefdom this is actually already why non profits have difficulty raising money many people view charities as unaccountable scams most non profits are funded solely by the board and the endowment is managed to grow tax free. If you start reading the IRS forms 990 you’ll see pretty wild and in…
That's not actually very common in non-profits. In the Apache foundation, there's membership that elects the board. While the membership is determined by the executives appointed by the board, there's at least some thought given to the idea of holding the people on the top accountable.
> That's not actually very common in non-profits.
there is a lot wrong with that assumption based on a single anecdote.
private foundations can have a single board member and that board member can be the single donor. although the IRS does not care in granting tax-exempt status, not all states offer a single board member for their own non-profit entity catalogue, but relevant states do like Delaware. of course Delaware does right? additionally, it doesn't matter what a state's non-profit entity selection has as any entity can obtain non-profit tax exempt status from the IRS technically, even unincorporated entities like sole-proprietorships ie. your general person when operating the charitable mission.
there is some transparency of this which is not aggregated, in the 990 series of tax disclosures that non-profits have to provide, this can show how many board members or directors there are, if that's whats important for you to prove. I don't think that's important, but this is about "common" or not and I don't have the aggregate data, that's where to get partial data.
none of these forms tell you the bylaws of the organization, these are still private documents. the bylaws dictate board member selection.
next, if Donor Advised Funds count as non-profits in your mind, that's a slam dunk as those are all pools of capital for grant making run by a single donor.
and where the transparency totally fails is in exempt non-profits, these report only the "postcard" 990-N and is entirely on an honor system that they have less than $50,000 in "annual receipts". these are cheap to create and nobody knows anything about them, what's actually on their balance sheet, there are basically no audits as they are tax exempt and there is no reason to determine what's missing.
I usually don't write this stuff as its more beneficial if the people had more disjointed opinions about tax matters, but I don't think Congress will ever reach consensus on any opinion people harbor so its fine. One of those examples where truth is less familiar than fiction.
Re: OpenAI board reappoints Altman and adds three other directors
#277I'm not necessarily saying they're wrong, but there's really no way to put out a release like this without a "history is written by the victors" vibe coming across.
He pretty clearly won. There's not much to it. A huge chunk of the company went into open revolt and he got a competing offer that threatened to recruit all of them. There's nothing really underhanded or sneaky about it: the board drastically overplayed their hand, and all Altman and Brockman had to do was say "I call". To use the parlance of this community of people: people's priors here all seem to be that somethin…
> the board drastically overplayed their hand
I think this is the wrong interpretation. The board had zero financial or power dynamic motivation, as there was nothing to gain. Due to Altman's backdoor dealings and manipulations, it is pretty clear that the board was right to make their decision in terms of being in line with the charter. The non-profit charter is legally binding, and it's possible that the board's action was to protect themselves legally because it's possible that Altman's machinations will bring regulatory action. OpenAI is indeed being investigated. This also explains the board's reasoning to resign if Altman was reinstated. They had zero reason to do that except if it was to protect themselves.
Re: OpenAI board reappoints Altman and adds three other directors
#278The only thing that matters is Sam Altman at the helm gives us the fastest path to actual useful AGI. Don’t listen to doomer logic
No, the only thing Altman will do is turn OpenAI into ClosedAI and pursue profit.
To pursue profit you need to constantly put do the competition and have a good product(better AI/UI for the AI for accessibility)
Re: OpenAI board reappoints Altman and adds three other directors
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt there’s a precedent for a CEO of a “non-profit” effectively answerable to no-one and able to use it as their personal fiefdom. It’s basically a company without shareholders. I’m curious how this will play out legally. Certainly, no one with any sense will be “donating” any money in OpenAI without some strong and specific guarantees of what they’re going to be getting in return. So it can in no way can be cons…
> Certainly, no one with any sense will be “donating” any money in OpenAI without some strong and specific guarantees of what they’re going to be getting in return. And what about the taxpayer? What are these guys/gals fighting over if it isn't future profits? Has anyone else read the reporting on the non-profit's corp structure? > OpenAI also created a subsidiary of For-Profit-LP, OpenAI LLC (let’s call that “For-Pr…
> I really have no idea why companies like Microsoft are putting so much money into a for profit entity, and calling it like a donation. Am I just skeptical or is everyone winking at each other, and acting too cute by half?
All those "donators" went up in arms and threatened to sue/quit when they thought that those "donations" wouldn't return profits. It is a for-profit in all but name today.