571–580 of 1001 posts
Update on the OpenAI drama: Altman and the board had till 5pm to reach a truce where the board would resign and he and Brockman would return. The deadline has passed and mass resignations expected if a deal isn’t reached ASAP https://twitter.com/alexeheath/status/1726055095341875545
Anyway I’m with Sutskever, the guy who builds models. Charismatic salesmen are a dime a dozen.
The board seems truly incompetent here and looking at the member list it doesn't seem very surprising. A competent board should have asked for legal and professional advice before taking a drastic step like this. Instead the board thought it was a boxing match and tried to deliver a knockout punch before the market closes with blunt language. This might be the most incompetent board for an organisation of this size.
Maybe they asked ChatGPT for legal advice.
If the reports are true, and Ilya led the coup, then either him or Sam can be at OpenAI going forward but not both. The rest of the board members who sided with him are gone either way. Regardless of who ends up at the helm, OpenAI is going to be a different place on Monday than it was on Thursday, and not for the better.
Not for the better why? Obviously Sam wasn’t the best fit for OpenAI and investors aren’t even saying what the problem is. Clearly the board feels he was the wrong person for the job. I think it’s ridiculous that everything thinks that Sam being outed means OpenAI is in trouble. Let this play out and see how it evolves
Even if we assume that's true, wouldn't the somewhat incompetent and seemingly unnecessarily dramatic way they handled not be a concerning sign?
The board seems truly incompetent here and looking at the member list it doesn't seem very surprising. A competent board should have asked for legal and professional advice before taking a drastic step like this. Instead the board thought it was a boxing match and tried to deliver a knockout punch before the market closes with blunt language. This might be the most incompetent board for an organisation of this size.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is wildly incorrect. But a non-profit does have stakeholders, donors, beneficiaries and employees. All of those can apply pressure on a board.
> This is wildly incorrect Great, we'll take your word for it.
But until he is re-hired Sam Altman is to all intents and purposes fired. And it may well come to that (and that would almost certainly require all those board members who voted for his ouster to vacate their positions because their little coup plan backfired and nobody is going to take the risk of that happening again, especially not in this way).
Man, the board already looked reckless and incompetent, but this solidifies the appearance. You can do crazy ill-advised things, but if you unwaveringly commit, we’ll always wonder if you’re secretly a genius. But when you immediately backtrack, we’ll know you were a fool all along.
Dude, everyone already thinks the board did a crazy ill-advised thing. They're about to be the board of like a 5 person or so company if they double down and commit. To be honest I hate takes like yours, where people think that acknowledging a mistake (even a giant mistake) is a sign of weakness. A bigger sign of weakness in my opinion is people who commit to a shitty idea just because they said it first, despite all…
"Disagree and commit."
- says every CEO these days