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

We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#881

Post by hackernewds »

garrison wrote: post #637

If OpenAI remains a 501(c)(3) charity, then any employee of Microsoft on the board will have a fiduciary duty to advance the mission of the charity, rather than the business needs of Microsoft. There are obvious conflicts of interest here. I don't expect the IRS to be a fan of this arrangement.

Not to mention, the mission of the Board cannot be "build safe AGI" anymore. Perhaps something more consistent with expanding shareholder value and capitalism, as the events of this weekend has shown.

Delivering profits and shareholder value is the sole and dominant force in capitalism. Remains to be seen whether that is consistent with humanity's survival

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#882

Post by rurp »

haunter wrote: post #336
Satam wrote: post #215

Disappointing outcome. The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. It might not seem like the case right now, but I think the real disruption is just about to begin. OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win, they're too…

> OpenAI is in fact not open Apple is also not an apple

Did Apple raise funds and spend a lot of time promoting itself as a giant apple that would feed humanity?

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#883

Post by segasaturn »

Satam wrote: post #215

Disappointing outcome. The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft. Furthermore, the overwhelming groupthink shows there's clearly little critical thinking amongst OpenAI's employees either. It might not seem like the case right now, but I think the real disruption is just about to begin. OpenAI does not have in its DNA to win, they're too…

>a real disruptor must be brewing somewhere unnoticed, for now.

Anthropic.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#884

Post by dragonwriter »

bradleybuda wrote: post #875
garrison wrote: post #637

If OpenAI remains a 501(c)(3) charity, then any employee of Microsoft on the board will have a fiduciary duty to advance the mission of the charity, rather than the business needs of Microsoft. There are obvious conflicts of interest here. I don't expect the IRS to be a fan of this arrangement.

Major corporate boards are rife with "on paper" conflicts on interest - that's what happens when you want people with real management experience to sit on your board and act like responsible adults. This happens in every single industry and has nothing to do with tech or with OpenAI specifically. In practice, board bylaws and common sense mean that individuals recuse themselves as needed and don't do stupid shit.

A corporation acting (due to influence from a conflicted board member that doesn't recuse) contrary to the interests of its stockholders and in the interest of the conflicted board member or who they represent potentially creates liability of the firm to its stockholders.

A charity acting (due to the influence of a conflicted board member that doesn't recuse) contrary to its charitable mission in the interests of the conflicted board member or who they represent does something similar with regard to liability of the firm to various stakeholders with a legally-enforceable interest in the charity and its mission, but also is also a public civil violation that can lead to IRS sanctions against the firm up to and including monetary penalties and loss of tax exempt status on top of whatever private tort liability exists.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#886

Post by boh »

garrison wrote: post #637

If OpenAI remains a 501(c)(3) charity, then any employee of Microsoft on the board will have a fiduciary duty to advance the mission of the charity, rather than the business needs of Microsoft. There are obvious conflicts of interest here. I don't expect the IRS to be a fan of this arrangement.

Whenever there's an obvious conflict, assume it's not enforced or difficult to litigate or has relatively irrelevant penalties. Experts/lawyers who have a material stake in getting this right have signed off on it. Many (if not most) people with enough status to be on the board of a fortune 500 company tend to also be on non-profit boards. We can go out on a limb and suppose the mission of the nonprofit is not their top priority, and yet they continue on unscathed.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#887

Post by ClarityJones »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #55

Did we ever find out why Sam Altman's removal happened in the first place? The reasons I've read so far seem really opaque. From an outsider's perspective, and until there's a clear explanation available, it just seems like a massive bundler.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/openais-...

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#888

Post by braiamp »

random_cynic wrote: post #308
laserlight wrote: post #236

With Sam coming back as CEO, hasn't OpenAI board proven that it has lost its function? Regardless of who is in the board, they won't be able to exercise one of the most fundamental of their rights, firing the CEO, because Sam has proven that he is unfireable. Now, Sam can do however he pleases, whether it is lying, not reporting, etc. To be clear, I don't claim that Sam did, or will, lie, or misbehave.

No that hasn't at all been the case. The board acted like the most incompetent group of individuals who've even handed any responsibility. If they went through due process, notified their employees and investors, and put out a statement of why they're firing the CEO instead of doing it over a 15 min Google meet and then going completely silent, none of this outrage would have taken place.

> If they went through due process, notified their employees and investors, and put out a statement of why they're firing the CEO

Did you read the bylaws? They have no responsibility to do any of that.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#889

Post by hinkley »

boh wrote: post #886
garrison wrote: post #637

If OpenAI remains a 501(c)(3) charity, then any employee of Microsoft on the board will have a fiduciary duty to advance the mission of the charity, rather than the business needs of Microsoft. There are obvious conflicts of interest here. I don't expect the IRS to be a fan of this arrangement.

Whenever there's an obvious conflict, assume it's not enforced or difficult to litigate or has relatively irrelevant penalties. Experts/lawyers who have a material stake in getting this right have signed off on it. Many (if not most) people with enough status to be on the board of a fortune 500 company tend to also be on non-profit boards. We can go out on a limb and suppose the mission of the nonprofit is not their…

Do you remember before Bill Gates got into disease prevention he thought that “charity work” could be done by giving away free Microsoft products? I don’t know who sat him down and explained to him how full of shit he was but they deserve a Nobel Peace Prize nomination.

Just because someone says they agree with a mission doesn’t mean they have their heads screwed on straight. And my thesis is that the more power they have in the real world the worse the outcomes - because powerful people become progressively immune to feedback. This has been working swimmingly for me for decades, I don’t need humility in a new situation.

Re: We have reached an agreement in principle for Sam to return to OpenAI as CEO

#890

Post by OnAYDIN »

random_cynic wrote: post #308
laserlight wrote: post #236

With Sam coming back as CEO, hasn't OpenAI board proven that it has lost its function? Regardless of who is in the board, they won't be able to exercise one of the most fundamental of their rights, firing the CEO, because Sam has proven that he is unfireable. Now, Sam can do however he pleases, whether it is lying, not reporting, etc. To be clear, I don't claim that Sam did, or will, lie, or misbehave.

No that hasn't at all been the case. The board acted like the most incompetent group of individuals who've even handed any responsibility. If they went through due process, notified their employees and investors, and put out a statement of why they're firing the CEO instead of doing it over a 15 min Google meet and then going completely silent, none of this outrage would have taken place.

Actually the board may not have acted in most professional way but in due process they kind of proved Sam Altman is unfireable for sure, even if they didn't intend to.

They did notify everyone. They did it after firing which is within their rights. They may also choose to stay silent if there is legitimate reason for it such as making the reasons known may harm the organization even more. This is speculation obviously.

In any case they didn't omit doing anything they need to and they didn't exercise a power they didn't have. The end result is that the board they choose will be impotent at the moment, for sure.

Post reply on HN