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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by dragonwriter »

zerohalo wrote: post #939
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.

OpenAI's charter is dead. I expect future boards to amend it.

Its useful PR pretext for their regulatory advocacy, and subjective enough that if they are careful not to be too obvious about specifically pushing one company’s commercial interest, they can probably get away with it forever, so why would it be any deader than when Sam was CEO before and not substantively guided by it.

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

#942

Post by jacquesm »

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…

> The process has conclusively confirmed that OpenAI is in fact not open and that it is effectively controlled by Microsoft.

This was said loud and clear when Microsoft joined in the first place but there were no takers.

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

#943

Post by brrrrrm »

jessenaser wrote: post #900
taway1874 wrote: post #897

Some perspective ... One developer (Ilya) vs. One businessman (Sam) -> Sam wins Hundreds of developers threaten to quit vs. Board of Directors (biz) refuse to budge -> Developers win From the outside it looks like developers held the power all along ... which is how it should be.

Yes, 95% agreement in any company is unprecedented but: 1. They can get equivalent position and pay at the new Microsoft startup during that time, so their jobs are not at risk. 2. Sam approved each hire in the first place. 3. OpenAI is selecting for the type of people who want to work at a non-profit with a goal in mind instead of another company that could offer higher compensation. Mission driven vs profit driven.…

> 1. They can get equivalent position and pay at the new Microsoft startup during that time, so their jobs are not at risk.

citation?

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

#944

Post by paulddraper »

daveguy wrote: post #934

Hi dang, Seeing a bug in your comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38382563 You reference the pages like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38375239?p=2 The second ? should be an & like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38375239&p=2 Please feel free to delete this message after you've received it.

Also, while we're at it:

"Nobody will be happier than I when this bottleneck (edit: the one in our code—not the world) is a thing of the past" [1]

HN plans to be multi-core?!?! A bigger scoop than OpenAI governance!

Anything more you can share?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38351005

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

#945

Post by paulddraper »

zerohalo wrote: post #937

Google, Meta and now OpenAI. So long, responsible and safety AI guardrails. Hello, big money. Disappointed by the outcome, but perhaps mission-driven AI development -- the reason OpenAI was founded -- was never possible. Edit: I applaud the board members for (apparently, it seems) trying to stand up for the mission (aka doing the job that they were put on the board to do), even if their efforts were doomed.

> I applaud the board members for (apparently, it seems) trying to stand up for the mission

What about this is apparent to you?

What statement has the board made on how they fired Altman "for the mission"?

Have I missed something?

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

#947

Post by zerohalo »

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.

> none of this outrage would have taken place.

most certainly would have still taken place; no one cares about how it was done; what they care about it being able to make $$; and it was clearly going to not be as heavily prioritized without Altman (which is why MSFT embraced him and his engineers almost immediately).

> notified their employees and investors they did notify their employees; they have fiduciary duty to investors as a nonprofit.

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

#948

Post by saliagato »

daveguy wrote: post #934

Hi dang, Seeing a bug in your comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38382563 You reference the pages like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38375239?p=2 The second ? should be an & like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38375239&p=2 Please feel free to delete this message after you've received it.

Why do you (dang) always write a comment specifying that people can read more and even providing some links when it's clear that when you reach the bottom of the page you have to click "read more" to indeed read more. Isn't it a bit useless?

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

#949

Post by [deleted] »

daveguy wrote: post #934

Hi dang, Seeing a bug in your comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38382563 You reference the pages like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38375239?p=2 The second ? should be an & like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38375239&p=2 Please feel free to delete this message after you've received it.

[deleted]

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

#950

Post by pvg »

daveguy wrote: post #934

Hi dang, Seeing a bug in your comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38382563 You reference the pages like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38375239?p=2 The second ? should be an & like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38375239&p=2 Please feel free to delete this message after you've received it.

If you want to reach the mods just email hn@ycombinator.com
Post reply on HN