[jasonhansel]

This was pretty clearly an attempt by the board to reassert control, which was slowly slipping away as the company became more enmeshed with Microsoft.

[jxi]

I'm not trying to throw undeserved shade, but why do we think this is something as complex as that and not just plain incompetence? Especially given the cloak and daggers firing without consulting or notifying any of their partners beforehand. That's just immaturity.

[rvnx]

Does that mean that the move of the board was actually good for openness of AI ?

[aunty_helen]

The board were literally doing their job. Anyone claiming incompetence is just mistaken about the stated goal of openai: safe available agi for all.

Throw in a huge investment, a 90 billion dollar valuation and a rockstar ceo. It’s pretty clear the court of public opinion is wrong about this case.

[AmericanOP]

Openness in the context of AI is not straightforward. The open source folks read it one way, and the alignment people read it another.

It is entirely possible a program that spits out the complete code for a nuclear targeting system should not be released in the wild.

[stefan_]

If Microsoft had to put out a statement "its all good we got the source code" clearly the openness of OpenAI was lost a while ago. This move of the board was presumably primarily good for the board.

[pests]

Is AI/AGI safety the same as openness?

[tyrfing]

"The board" isn't exactly a single entity. Even if the current board made this decision unanimously, they were a minority at the beginning of the year.

[TeMPOraL]

So basically, "if you aim for the king, you'd better not miss" kind of situation.

[optimalsolver]

Now known as Prigozhin's Law.

[timeon]

More like last desperate attempt.