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

OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#781

Post by lotsoweiners »

Grimblewald wrote: post #281
gkoberger wrote: post #24

I'd bet money Satya was a driver of this reversal. I genuinely can't believe the board didn't see this coming. I think they could have won in the court of public opinion if their press release said they loved Sam but felt like his skills and ambitions diverged from their mission. But instead, they tried to skewer him, and it backfired completely. I hope Sam comes back. He'll make a lot more money if he doesn't, but I…

I hope that group starts a new version of openai using the credibility and popularity gained to acheive the original vision of safe, free, and open agi for the betterment of humanity.

Which part is “better for humanity”?

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#782

Post by neel8986 »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #103
twoodfin wrote: post #46

This suggests a plausible explanation that Altman was attempting to engineer the board’s expansion or replacement: After the events of the last 48 hours, could you blame him? In this scenario, it was a pure power struggle. The board believed they’d win by showing Altman the door, but it didn’t take long to demonstrate that their actual power to do so was limited to the de jure end of the spectrum.

Any talented engineer or scientist who actually wants to ship product AND make money would head over to Sam’s startup. Any investor who cares about making money would fund Sam’s startup as well. The way the board pulled this off really gave them no good outcome. They stand to lose talent AND investors AND customers. Half the people I know who use GPT in their work are wondering if it will be even worth paying for if…

This is power struggle between silicon valley VC group and AI scientists. This conflict was bound to happen at some point across every company. I don't think the interest of both the group aligns after certain point. No self respecting AI scientist want to work hard for making closed model SaaS products.

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#783

Post by astrange »

slowhadoken wrote: post #752
meetpateltech wrote: post #568

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

Has anyone else notice how many techies are on Twitter but still badmouth Twitter?

Using Twitter causes it to lose money so it's fine.

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#784

Post by sangreal »

MVissers wrote: post #711
silenced_trope wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The major investors whose money is on the line and who are funding the venture, Microsoft, Sequoia, and Khosla, were not given advanced warning or any input in to how this would impact their investment. I would definitely say the board screwed up. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2023/11/17/openai-in...

The board of the non-profit (one that fired Sam) has no fiduciary duty to those investors, I believe. Microsoft invested in the for-profit Openai, which is owned by the non-profit. The other ones I don't know. The board has no responsibility to Microsoft whatsoever regarding this. Sam Altman structured it this way himself. Not to say that the board didn't screw up.

They don't have any duty as far as governing the non-profit, but as majority shareholder of the for-profit subsidiary, the non-profit would still have a fiduciary duty to the subsidiary's minority shareholders.

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#785

Post by meowtimemania »

naremu wrote: post #230
Jensson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope Sam comes back Why? We would have more diversity in this space if he leaves, which would get us another AI startup with huge funding and know how from OpenAI, while OpenAI would become less Sam Altman like. I think him staying is bad for the field overall compared to OpenAI splitting in two.

To be honest, as far as I can tell, the case FOR Sam seems to largely be of the status quo "Well, idk, he's been rich and successful for years, surely this correlates and we must keep them" type of coddling those in uber superior positions in society. Which seems like it probably is a self fulfilling prophecy. The private sector lottery winners seem to be awarded kingdoms at an alarming rate. There's been lots of peo…

The case for Sam is the success of OpenAI while Sam was CEO. If the status quo is wild success, then keeping the status quo is a good thing.

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#786

Post by TapWaterBandit »

MVissers wrote: post #711
silenced_trope wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The major investors whose money is on the line and who are funding the venture, Microsoft, Sequoia, and Khosla, were not given advanced warning or any input in to how this would impact their investment. I would definitely say the board screwed up. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2023/11/17/openai-in...

The board of the non-profit (one that fired Sam) has no fiduciary duty to those investors, I believe. Microsoft invested in the for-profit Openai, which is owned by the non-profit. The other ones I don't know. The board has no responsibility to Microsoft whatsoever regarding this. Sam Altman structured it this way himself. Not to say that the board didn't screw up.

While this may be technically true, the reality is that when you take $10 billion from a company there are strings attached. Consultation on a decision of this magnitude is one of those strings. You can choose to push ahead anyway after this is done but dropping the news on them 1 minute before you pull the trigger is unacceptable and MSFT will go for the throat here. You can't be seen to be a company that can be treated like this at MSFT level when you have invested this much money in any org.

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#788

Post by achow »

shmatt wrote: post #598

This makes no sense. People are calling what the board did a coup, but Altman is trying (failing?) to stage a coup. The board was Altmans boss - this is pretty much their only job. Altman knew this and most likely ignored any questions or concerns of theirs thinking he is the unfireable superstar Imagine if your boss fired you - and your response was - I’ll come back if you quit! Yeah, no. People might confuse status…

The board is getting pressured like so..

The playbook, a source told Forbes would be straightforward: make OpenAI’s new management, under acting CEO Mira Murati and the remaining board, accept that their situation was untenable through a combination of mass revolt by senior researchers, withheld cloud computing credits from Microsoft, and a potential lawsuit from investors. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2023/11/18/openai-in...

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#789

Post by smegger001 »

airstrike wrote: post #631
blazespin wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The staff calls the shots. The money will go wherever the talent is.

Owners call the shots, otherwise staff would never get fired.

never heard of a unions? staff can have power too. and often they do prevent wrongful firings.

Re: OpenAI board in discussions with Sam Altman to return as CEO

#790

Post by username332211 »

dannyw wrote: post #626
minimaxir wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass resignations from whom, I wonder. Other researchers?

Presumably a significant amount of OpenAI employees are motivated by money, at least in some form. The board just vaporised the tender offer, and likely much of their valuation. It’s hard to have confidence in that.

Also, most of the human race has an instinctual aversion to plotters and machinations. The board's sudden and rather dubious (why the need to bad-mouth Altman?) actions probably didn't sit well with many.

Dante places Brutus in the lowest circle of hell, while Cato is placed outside of hell altogether, even if both fought for the same thing. Sometimes means matter more than ends.

If the whole process had been more regular, they could have removed Altman with little drama.

Post reply on HN