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

811–820 of 1001 posts

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

#811

Post by [deleted] »

adharmad wrote: post #361
crop_rotation wrote: post #60

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.

It was complete amateur hour for the board. But that aside, how did so many clueless folks who understand neither the technology, or the legalese, nor have enough intelligence/acumen to forsee the immediate impact of their actions happen to be on the board of one of the most important tech companies?

[deleted]

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

#812

Post by thinkcomp »

alexallain wrote: post #804
thinkcomp wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does not solve the company's California AG problem. https://www.plainsite.org/posts/aaron/r8huu7s/

Hey I know something about this! I just mailed my organization's RRF-1 a couple of days ago. The author of this post seems to be confused. My organization is on the same fiscal year as OpenAI, and our RRF-1 had to be mailed by November 15th. That explains the supposed "six month" delay. Second, if it's mailed on November 15th, it might not have even been received yet, let alone processed. This post feels like graspin…

The six-month delay is probably due to an automatic extension if you get an extension from the IRS, and also, you can file the form electronically, in which case mail delays are not a problem. But neither of those issues is the point. The point is that the form needed to be filed at all, and representations needed to be made accordingly.

OpenAI handled their audit years ago and hasn't had another one since according to their filings. So that does not seem like it would have been an issue this year.

Take a look at the top of the RRF-1 for the instructions on when it's due. Also, the CA AG's website says that OpenAI's was due on May 15th. They just have been filing six months later each year.

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

#813

Post by az226 »

huytersd wrote: post #809
adam_arthur wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty incredible incompetence all around if true. From the board for not anticipating a backlash and caving immediately... from Microsoft for investing into an endeavor that is purportedly chartered as non-profit and governed by nobodies who can sink it on a whim. And having 0 hard influence on the direction despite a large ownership stake Why bother with a non-profit model that is surreptitiously for profit? The wh…

[flagged]

“Tech entrepreneur”

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

#814

Post by 0x142857 »

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?

you can't critisize the government if you live in the country?

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

#815

Post by firtoz »

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 here are more like advisors.

If Altman takes all of the good engineers and researchers with him, OpenAI is no more.

So the board can be the boss of nothing, sure, without the ability to do anything - leading the organisation, raising funds, and so on

Perhaps they could hire someone that could replace Sam Altman, but, that would require a much larger company who have the employees indifferent to the leadership, like, EA or something

OpenAI is much more smaller and close knit.

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

#816

Post by az226 »

lordfrito wrote: post #680
chasd00 wrote: post #652

I think Microsoft is behind all of this. The “kumbaya let’s work together for humanity” Microsoft has been swapped out for the old Microsoft. Too much is at stake for them.

I read Nadella has threatened to turn off OpenAIs computers and would litigate the hell out of them to prevent the computers from being turned back on. Which is why the board is suddenly open to negotiation with Altman. Yeah, that's the Microsoft of old. Don't trust 'em. Bad news for OpenAI, and any hope that this stuff won't be used for evil.

Also not paying the rest of the tranches that would make up the $10B. Also with Microsoft being their exclusive commercial partner, they can’t revenue fund if Microsoft stops the spigots. No other investor would want to invest. PPUs lose most of their value and employees leave. How to implode the most important company of our times with record speed.

It’s also strange why they would have a couple of nobodies on the board.

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

#817

Post by elcritch »

empath75 wrote: post #654
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 nature of power relationships at this level is not strictly hierarchical and there's a vast wealth differential here, and Sam is a lot more powerful than any of the board members in many many ways. Everybody who has large amounts of money at stake in this enterprise is going to back Altman. The board has no one.

It to mention I’d wager that Altman is a lot higher on the sociopathic scale as well. The board members sound like somewhat normalish people trying to stick to their charter and perhaps genuine belief in the missions. Altman, not so much.

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

#818

Post by dang »

huytersd wrote: post #809
adam_arthur wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty incredible incompetence all around if true. From the board for not anticipating a backlash and caving immediately... from Microsoft for investing into an endeavor that is purportedly chartered as non-profit and governed by nobodies who can sink it on a whim. And having 0 hard influence on the direction despite a large ownership stake Why bother with a non-profit model that is surreptitiously for profit? The wh…

[flagged]

You've posted some version of this at least half a dozen times now. Please stop.

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

#820

Post by talldatethrow »

huytersd wrote: post #809
adam_arthur wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty incredible incompetence all around if true. From the board for not anticipating a backlash and caving immediately... from Microsoft for investing into an endeavor that is purportedly chartered as non-profit and governed by nobodies who can sink it on a whim. And having 0 hard influence on the direction despite a large ownership stake Why bother with a non-profit model that is surreptitiously for profit? The wh…

[flagged]

[flagged]
Post reply on HN