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

Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 701 posts

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#481

Post by dekhn »

cowl wrote: post #247
johnwheeler wrote: post #84

Edit: I called it https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725682088639119857 nothing to do with dishonesty. That’s just the official reason. ———- I haven’t heard anyone commenting about this, but the two main figures here-consider: This MUST come down to a disagreement between Altman and Sutskever. Also interesting that Sutskever tweeted a month and a half ago https://twitter.com/ilyasut/status/1707752576077176907 Th…

What is confusing here is Why would Greg have agreed to the language in the press release (that he would be staying in the company and report to the CEO) only to resign 1 hour later. Surely the press release would not have contained that information without the his agreement that he would be staying.

He didn't. Greg was informed after Sam (I'm assuming the various bits being flung about by Swisher are true; she gets a free pass on things like this), so I think the sequence was: a subset of the board meets, forms quorum, votes to terminate Sam and remove Greg as chair (without telling him). Then they write the PR, and around the same time, let Sam and then Greg know. If OpenAI were a government, this would be called a coup.

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#482

Post by blackguardx »

Spivak wrote: post #424
Mistletoe wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just read it as illiterate and am amazed someone that deliberately writes like that was chairman of the board.

This is honestly par for the course for anyone who didn't grow up a digital native and is a career businessman who didn't spend it hand-composing messages. I wouldn't read too much into it. Direct emails from executives that aren't filtered by their assistants all look like this.

You don't think Greg is a "digital native?"

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#484

Post by icy_deadposts »

moralestapia wrote: post #438
johnwheeler wrote: post #84

Edit: I called it https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725682088639119857 nothing to do with dishonesty. That’s just the official reason. ———- I haven’t heard anyone commenting about this, but the two main figures here-consider: This MUST come down to a disagreement between Altman and Sutskever. Also interesting that Sutskever tweeted a month and a half ago https://twitter.com/ilyasut/status/1707752576077176907 Th…

> https://twitter.com/ilyasut/status/1707752576077176907 Dang! He left @elonmusk on read. Now that's some ego at play.

[flagged]

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#486

Post by apstls »

foobiekr wrote: post #377
johnwheeler wrote: post #84

Edit: I called it https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725682088639119857 nothing to do with dishonesty. That’s just the official reason. ———- I haven’t heard anyone commenting about this, but the two main figures here-consider: This MUST come down to a disagreement between Altman and Sutskever. Also interesting that Sutskever tweeted a month and a half ago https://twitter.com/ilyasut/status/1707752576077176907 Th…

I think you're completely backward. A board doesn't do that unless they absolutely have to. Think back in history. For example, consider the absolutely massive issues at Uber that had to go public before the board did anything. There is no way this is over some disagreement, there has to be serious financial, ethical or social wrongdoing for the board to rush job it and put a company worth tens of billions of dollars…

The board, like any, is a small group of people, and in this case a small group of people divided into two sides defined by conflicting ideological perspectives. In this case, I imagine the board members have much broader and longer-term perspectives and considerations factoring into their decision making than the significant, significant majority of other companies/boards. Generalizing doesn’t seem particularly helpful.

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#487

Post by jrockway »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #401
Sebb767 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still a completely unnecessary disturbance of the market. You also don't want to bite the hand that feeds you. This would be taking a personal disagreement to Musk-levels of market impact.

What is all this nonsense about MSFT stock price? Nothing material has happened to it. https://www.google.com/finance/quote/MSFT:NASDAQ

People zooming in too far. If you look at the 1d chart, yeah, something happened at 3:30. If you look at the 1m chart, today is irrelevant.

Re: Greg Brockman quits OpenAI

#488

Post by indymike »

crop_rotation wrote: post #22

This all seems so weird, and the list of Board members doesn't make this any easier to understand. Apart from the 3 insiders, there are 3 other board members. 2 of them seem complete no names and might not qualify for any important corporate board. In a for profit shareholders in theory control the board, in a non profit I am not even sure of who really has control over things.

> in a non-profit I am not even sure of who really has control over things

The board is in absolute control in a not-for-profit. The loophole is that some have bylaws that make ad-hoc board meetings and management change votes very difficult to call for non-operating board members, and it can take months to get a motion to fire the CEO up for a vote.

In some not-for-profits, the board often even manages to recruit and seat new board members. Some not-for-profits operate as membership associations, where the organization’s membership elects the board members to terms.

On the few not-for-profits where I was a board member, we started every meeting with a motion to retain the Executive Director (CEO). If the vote failed, so did the Executive Director.

Post reply on HN