Does anybody know who is currently CEO of OpenAI? Friday, Sam. Saturday, Mira. Sunday was a day off, Monday it was Emmet so who is it for today?
Kidding aside, the board is under more and more pressure but - surprisingly - they haven't folded yet. I am interpreting that as that they are trying to get something out of it that nobody is willing to give them. The new CEO is also surprisingly not to be found at all, no public statements, nothing to reassure employees that the ship is in good hands. Not the best showing for a captain of a ship in crisis.
I don’t think the board is under any pressure. If they don’t do anything else they just need the employees to fold on their threat to resign. Even if the employees resign, ChatGPT is still running and there are lots of people willing to take the defecting employees spots.
The only thing they are pressured on is to fill in the story for the media point of view which is irrelevant to the actual functioning of OpenAI.
> Does anybody know who is currently CEO of OpenAI?
Emmett Shear.
Altman won't be back.
Investors like success and returns but they don't like companies where all the employees have basically sworn out an oath of fealty to the CEO, as it means they (the investors) have basically no control over anything.
If the board resigns that may be good for the company, but it may not be good for those on the board. If, on the other hand, the board prevails OpenAI may still turn out to be fine regardless.
What do the board members have to loose by holding their ground?
The employees won’t resign and I doubt Microsoft will match the hypothetical 90B valuation for their profit participation units, otherwise they would’ve left already (Microsoft has agreed to match).
The investors have no power here and are effectively irrelevant. The remaining board had little to lose. The charter explicitly calls investment risky, so they’re good there too.
> The Company's duty to this mission and the principles advanced in the OpenAl, Inc. Charter take precedence over any obligation to generate a profit. The Company may never make a profit, and the Company is under no obligation to do so.
Even if the employees left I’m sure there is a class of person who would join still.
My questions are who will be permanently ceo, and why did they foolishly accuse Altman of lying. Luckily for them everyone lies and they can just pick something, but it was a bad move.
The investors have extremely deep pockets and good lawyers. I would not want to be on that board even with very good D&O insurance. It's not bulletproof, and a lawsuit by Altman, in particular, could be excluded from coverage and force them to defend themselves out of pocket.
> I doubt Microsoft will match the hypothetical 90B valuation for their profit share units, otherwise they would’ve left already (Microsoft has agreed to match)
It's not reported as much as it should be, but at one point in 2021 the OpenAI board had 10 people on it. In the beginning of 2023 it had 9 people. 3 stepped down over the course of 2023 and were not replaced, leaving only 6 in place by the time of last week's fiasco. 2 of the 6 were then removed on Friday leaving 4. The typical large company will have 10-12 people on the board. Apparently, OpenAI's bylaws do not set a fixed size for the board and allow the board itself to elect and remove members and allows a simple majority to take any action without even requiring a formal meeting. It's a glaring failure of governance that OpenAI now has a 4 person board that seems split and paralyzed over what to do next. The path forward has to include not only all 4 of the current board members resigning but a change in bylaws to establish a larger board with a balance of insiders and outsiders and much clearer operating procedures.
>It's not reported as much as it should be, but at one point in 2021 the OpenAI board had 10 people on it. In the beginning of 2023 it had 9 people. 3 stepped down over the course of 2023 and were not replaced, leaving only 6 in place by the time of last week's fiasco.
Something bothered me when I read the board members' bios after Altman's firing but didn't figure out until today; it's not so much what they say, as much as what they don't say. There is no greybeard, some seasoned current/former C-level at another company (no, the CEO of Quora does not quality). There is no VC representative.
My question: Did the board ever have such people?
(I realize that OpenAI has this weird nonprofit/profit ownership arrangement which I still don't get, and that the VC board members/observers are presumably on the profit side, but that still doesn't answer the implied question!)
> Apparently, OpenAI's bylaws do not set a fixed size for the board and allow the board itself to elect and remove members and allows a simple majority to take any action without even requiring a formal meeting.
For their sake I do hope they read the bylaws and that your 'apparently' doesn't come back to haunt them because then they are in even more trouble.
> The path forward has to include not only all 4 of the current board members resigning but a change in bylaws to establish a larger board with a balance of insiders and outsiders and much clearer operating procedures.
Amen to that. It might even end with the removal of the oversight board and the whole non-profit construct.
But it does seem that the concentration of power was getting a bit high. And the fact that the nonprofit that was created to balance exactly that had disintegrated is not a good sign.
This structure of the nonprofit seems to be a very smart move by some very smart people. Visionaries. I’d say it needs to be restored and rebalanced.
This is not a structure that will actually work in the real world and everyone involved knows it.
Why? Because the profit half is why the non-profit would ever have power.
If the company is led to slow progress down or reduce profit motivations, other companies will fill that gap and the non-profit doesnt have power over AI anymore.
To be the source of AI, to control it, means to have the money to pay the best, to build the sort of place that AI dev can thrive. Only then can you control what gets out there. This will lead a rift between the pro-profit and non-profit halves and when the investors and clients get limited by the nonprofits, they will work to kill the non-profit. This is what reality, not dream company world, looks like.
Might I add, the board was stacked from the start. They have a competitor on the board regulating the profit half. Few if any of them are actually respectable or successful leaders.
This ends with the Board gone and replaced with one pro-profit for MS, or MS holding all the cards internally. No version of this actually will work long-term and it never would. People inventing it thought they could make a dream company of sorts with no downsides, just non-profit smarts running a profitable company...but it isn't a balanced system. The money wins out.
OpenAI is incorporated in Delaware, so it would be up to the Delaware attorney general to make any direction as to the non-profit purpose, which she has thus far ignored.
"A potential return of Sam Altman as OpenAI’s CEO will likely strengthen Microsoft’s strategic positioning, especially if it’s able to procure a seat on the new board. This could also be the preferred outcome for Microsoft, given a high legal risk if it hires a majority of OpenAI employees. We see little to no likelihood that Microsoft will buy OpenAI amid ongoing regulatory hurdles."
Firing Sam Altman was a truly great move and I hope the board wins out. Investors are furious... Who cares? That's why it is a nonprofit, to protect them from being forced towards maximizing growth and profit at the expense of their mission. Let Sam and whoever wants go to Microsoft and copy the chat product, wishing them the best.
does this story remind anyone of when Facebook investors started crying about needing new leadership?
same story here - investors knew what they were buying into. A profit capped for profit, OWNED BY A NON PROFIT. Said non profit could, at any time, make decisions that are not optimal for profit. Surprise surprise.
Of course they'll push, but I doubt they'll get any sympathy.
In aggregate they are secret sauce why GPT4 only exists in OpenAI not anywhere else. Data/compute are hard too, but some competitors do have the capacity.
As of yesterday this situation has crossed into omnishambles territory.
Sunday you could still have reversed this and treated it as a blip. Now it's Tuesday—there's not really an option anymore that doesn't cause some kind of lasting damage.
Does anyone know what control the investors have over their funds? I've seen mention that it might be cloud credits that they could pull, but I'm not sure I understand how they could do that unless it was part of their contract.
Assuming Altman has already signed paper with MSFT, how would this work exactly? Break whatever contract clause there was involved? Maybe it's customary to have an easy backout period in situations like this.
I think that's a large thing to assume. That announcement could also have been easily just damage control before the markets opened on Monday and nothing has yet to be truly hashed out and agreed on.
I am not sure the enforceability of non-competes in California. They're certainly not for ordinary workers but I know that it is often enforceable in other places for executives even when deemed not for workers.
[+] [-] jobsub|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|2 years ago|reply
Kidding aside, the board is under more and more pressure but - surprisingly - they haven't folded yet. I am interpreting that as that they are trying to get something out of it that nobody is willing to give them. The new CEO is also surprisingly not to be found at all, no public statements, nothing to reassure employees that the ship is in good hands. Not the best showing for a captain of a ship in crisis.
[+] [-] righthand|2 years ago|reply
The only thing they are pressured on is to fill in the story for the media point of view which is irrelevant to the actual functioning of OpenAI.
[+] [-] jessenaser|2 years ago|reply
Given that:
1. Cycled three CEOs in less than a week.
2. The current interim CEO is in talks to resign (because the board still has not given a clear reason to why Sam was fired).
[+] [-] moontear|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 15457345234|2 years ago|reply
Emmett Shear.
Altman won't be back.
Investors like success and returns but they don't like companies where all the employees have basically sworn out an oath of fealty to the CEO, as it means they (the investors) have basically no control over anything.
[+] [-] quonn|2 years ago|reply
What do the board members have to loose by holding their ground?
[+] [-] QuantumGood|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] type0|2 years ago|reply
They should assign ChatGPT to be CEO
[+] [-] dools|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DonHopkins|2 years ago|reply
https://donhopkins.com/home/CostaConcordiaFTFY.jpg
[+] [-] karmasimida|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] readyplayernull|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamnemecek|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] endisneigh|2 years ago|reply
The investors have no power here and are effectively irrelevant. The remaining board had little to lose. The charter explicitly calls investment risky, so they’re good there too.
> The Company's duty to this mission and the principles advanced in the OpenAl, Inc. Charter take precedence over any obligation to generate a profit. The Company may never make a profit, and the Company is under no obligation to do so.
Even if the employees left I’m sure there is a class of person who would join still.
My questions are who will be permanently ceo, and why did they foolishly accuse Altman of lying. Luckily for them everyone lies and they can just pick something, but it was a bad move.
[+] [-] Pigalowda|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dgacmu|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] golergka|2 years ago|reply
If Microsoft won't, Google or Meta will.
[+] [-] DebtDeflation|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TMWNN|2 years ago|reply
Something bothered me when I read the board members' bios after Altman's firing but didn't figure out until today; it's not so much what they say, as much as what they don't say. There is no greybeard, some seasoned current/former C-level at another company (no, the CEO of Quora does not quality). There is no VC representative.
My question: Did the board ever have such people?
(I realize that OpenAI has this weird nonprofit/profit ownership arrangement which I still don't get, and that the VC board members/observers are presumably on the profit side, but that still doesn't answer the implied question!)
[+] [-] jacquesm|2 years ago|reply
For their sake I do hope they read the bylaws and that your 'apparently' doesn't come back to haunt them because then they are in even more trouble.
> The path forward has to include not only all 4 of the current board members resigning but a change in bylaws to establish a larger board with a balance of insiders and outsiders and much clearer operating procedures.
Amen to that. It might even end with the removal of the oversight board and the whole non-profit construct.
[+] [-] ChatGTP|2 years ago|reply
They are crying foul now and it might work out ok. But they were asking for it.
[+] [-] startupsfail|2 years ago|reply
Sam Altman certainly was very perceptive -https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1
But it does seem that the concentration of power was getting a bit high. And the fact that the nonprofit that was created to balance exactly that had disintegrated is not a good sign.
This structure of the nonprofit seems to be a very smart move by some very smart people. Visionaries. I’d say it needs to be restored and rebalanced.
[+] [-] agloe_dreams|2 years ago|reply
Why? Because the profit half is why the non-profit would ever have power.
If the company is led to slow progress down or reduce profit motivations, other companies will fill that gap and the non-profit doesnt have power over AI anymore.
To be the source of AI, to control it, means to have the money to pay the best, to build the sort of place that AI dev can thrive. Only then can you control what gets out there. This will lead a rift between the pro-profit and non-profit halves and when the investors and clients get limited by the nonprofits, they will work to kill the non-profit. This is what reality, not dream company world, looks like. Might I add, the board was stacked from the start. They have a competitor on the board regulating the profit half. Few if any of them are actually respectable or successful leaders.
This ends with the Board gone and replaced with one pro-profit for MS, or MS holding all the cards internally. No version of this actually will work long-term and it never would. People inventing it thought they could make a dream company of sorts with no downsides, just non-profit smarts running a profitable company...but it isn't a balanced system. The money wins out.
[+] [-] mminer237|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] himaraya|2 years ago|reply
"A potential return of Sam Altman as OpenAI’s CEO will likely strengthen Microsoft’s strategic positioning, especially if it’s able to procure a seat on the new board. This could also be the preferred outcome for Microsoft, given a high legal risk if it hires a majority of OpenAI employees. We see little to no likelihood that Microsoft will buy OpenAI amid ongoing regulatory hurdles."
— Anurag Rana and Andrew Girard, analysts
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-21/altman-op...
[+] [-] methodical|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woopsn|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alberth|2 years ago|reply
Isn’t the underlining issue the conflict of their own nonprofit vs profit status & motives.
[+] [-] jacquesm|2 years ago|reply
- board liability
- board resignations
- dissolution or restructuring of the non-profit + bylaws
- timing
- any pay-off to the board (assuming they aren't lucky to escape with their hides in one piece)
[+] [-] xivzgrev|2 years ago|reply
same story here - investors knew what they were buying into. A profit capped for profit, OWNED BY A NON PROFIT. Said non profit could, at any time, make decisions that are not optimal for profit. Surprise surprise.
Of course they'll push, but I doubt they'll get any sympathy.
[+] [-] woeirua|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karmasimida|2 years ago|reply
In aggregate they are secret sauce why GPT4 only exists in OpenAI not anywhere else. Data/compute are hard too, but some competitors do have the capacity.
[+] [-] paul7986|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Thaxll|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jmerz|2 years ago|reply
Sunday you could still have reversed this and treated it as a blip. Now it's Tuesday—there's not really an option anymore that doesn't cause some kind of lasting damage.
[+] [-] pyb|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] russdpale|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tcgv|2 years ago|reply
Is support for Sam Altman's return that strong within the company, or are the media and investors exaggerating for their own sake?
[+] [-] curiousllama|2 years ago|reply
“Hey Microsoft - you for real about that offer?”
[+] [-] ilaksh|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foota|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foobarian|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekosz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] empath-nirvana|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tmostak|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] layer8|2 years ago|reply
https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23970100/sam-altman-micr...
[+] [-] whimsicalism|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blisterpeanuts|2 years ago|reply