Many are speculating that Sam Altman could just move on and create another OpenAI 2.0 because he could easily attract talent and investors.<p>What this misses is all the regulatory capture that he’s been campaigning for. All the platforms have now closed their gardens. Authors and artists are much more vigilant about copyright etc. So it’s now a totally different game compared to 3 years ago because the data is not just there up for grabs anymore.
The key question in my mind is not who is going to be on the new board, but whether Ilya Sutskever will stay if Altman comes back. I worry that OpenAI without Ilya is not going to produce groundbreaking innovations at the same pace. Hopefully Sam Altman and Ilya Sutskever can patch things up. That's more important than who they add or remove to the board.
From the article: "...but Microsoft hasn’t decided whether it wants board representation..."<p>This is not a good sign. Microsoft the largest $10Bn investor, who is in the middle of pushing through the restructuring of the company, hasn't decided if they want board representation? The only reason you would do that if they want to keep their options open, in the future, to hit OpenAI hard (legally and/or to raid the personnel).<p>Board representation would come with a fiduciary responsibility and it looks like they may not want that. I could only imagine the intensity of Microsoft senior engineers screaming that they could replicate all of this in-house (not saying whether it's justified or not).
So the discussions are definitely happening it seems: <a href="https://twitter.com/sama/status/1726345564059832609" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://twitter.com/sama/status/1726345564059832609</a>
> With his firing from OpenAI, Altman quickly got the upper hand in terms of public messaging. The board didn’t use a communications or law firm in its dealings, people familiar with the board said, expecting that the OpenAI team would help them. But Altman had loyalty from investors and employees.<p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-leadership-hangs-in-balance-as-sam-altmans-counte-rebellion-gains-steam-47276fa8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-leadership-hangs-in-balan...</a>
The main question at this point should be whether Sam's model or Ilya's model is more likely to succeed in the primary goal of the teams, which is (and should be): how do we stay on the leading edge long enough to figure out safety. All the adults in the room want safety [1], it's just how to really get it.<p>There are very wealthy competitors out there, any of which could end up beating OpenAI if they get half an edge. If you don't beat them, you don't get to figure out safety.<p>If Sam starts another company, you know deep in your soul he'll have all the backing he could ever dream of. Everyone who can sign a check is dying to get in on this. All the smart talent in the world would love to be employee number 1 through 1000. He's figured that you need the money if you want to stay in the game and he's world-class at making that happen. If OpenAI has all the purity of conviction and never gets another dollar because it all flows to SamCo...do they still win and figure out safety?<p>(Plus get some profits, attract staff who want to make bank, get full control of the board anyway, etc)<p>[1] We're nowhere near GPT controlling nukes, elections or the bond market, or desiring to. We need at least a couple massive algo changes before things take off. So some speed at this point isn't thaaat dangerous.
Does the story of Sam raising funds from Saudi investors to start a AI Chip company have any relevance to what happened or is that just a nothing-burger? I don't any people on HN discussing it today
This seems to me like an example of how difficult it is to organize a company around a goal other then making money. As a non-profit, OpanAI was not supposed to be a profit maximizing enterprise. But how is a board supposed to opperate, and set objectives without a clear goal like profit maximization? Usually a boards represents the owners of the business and their interested. The OpenAI board does not represent the owners because there are no owners. So the board is just 6 people and their opionions. Hard to see how that can work.
As of this moment the website <i>still</i> says under: <a href="https://openai.com/our-structure" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://openai.com/our-structure</a><p>Our board
"OpenAI is governed by the board of the OpenAI Nonprofit, comprised of OpenAI Global, LLC employees Greg Brockman (Chairman & President), Ilya Sutskever (Chief Scientist), and Sam Altman (CEO), and non-employees Adam D’Angelo, Tasha McCauley, Helen Toner."<p>There is also a prominent red notice that seems made for somebody in Seattle...<p>IMPORTANT<p>*Investing in OpenAI Global, LLC is a *<i>high-risk investment*</i><p>*<i>Investors could lose their capital contribution and not see any return*</i><p>*<i>It would be wise to view an investment in OpenAI Global,LLC in the spirit of a donation, with the understanding that it may be difficult to know what role money will play in a post-AGI world*</i><p>I am going to grab more popcorn...
Related ongoing thread:<p><i>OpenAI investors try to get Sam Altman back as CEO after sudden firing</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38326834">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38326834</a> - Nov 2023 (73 comments)
Still wondering why Sam was kicked. He is indeed super smart, but I don't trust his integrity and morality based on his past intentions:<p><pre><code> * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldcoin
* pushing for AI regulation</code></pre>
I really hope Altman doesn't return to his role. It is nice to see some people showing some spine and standing up to business interestes. "Open"AI is and was a lie for the longest time.
At the risk of being off topic (well, definitely):<p>> in a post on X, formerly Twitter<p>It keep surprising me that someone can so completely torpedo their brand that news organisations feel compelled to keep referring to the old name so people have some idea of what they’re talking about.
> Altman… regretted not spending more time managing [the board’s] various factions<p>Wild that there can <i>be</i> various factions with apparently only three relevant people (yes I know 3 choose 2 is three, but c’Mon…).
I only got to know Altman from the Lex Fridman podcast, but he never striked me as particularly ethical or insightful.<p>For a while I felt more hopeful about OpenAI being truly open and benefiting everyone (perhaps I was naive).<p>I hope he doesn't end up being the CEO again.
What are the exact reasons for Ilya to fire Sam Altman is something I and half a million of other folks are more interested than the question of whether he can replicate open ai or over take it via new venture. Any takes in this thread?
The only power MS has is soft power as a backer. Will that win over the board's actual power? If MS pulls investment it will be a catastrophic blow.
This is why, when you claim to be running a non-profit to "benefit humankind," you shouldn't put all your resources into a for-profit subsidiary. Eventually, the for-profit arm, and its investors, will find its nonprofit parent a hindrance, and an insular board of directors won't stand a chance against corporate titans.
Why are people suddenly jacking Altman off so hard? What has this non-technical dude done other than trying to corner the AI market for himself and implementing insane bullshit like worldcoin for him to deserve such weird devotion?
"Bret Taylor, the former co-CEO of Salesforce Inc., will be on the new board, several people said. Another possible addition is an executive from Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft, OpenAI’s largest shareholder — but Microsoft hasn’t decided whether it wants board representation, some people said."<p>hah, Microsoft will be in control from here on out whether they have someone technically on the board or not. They did the embrace and extend now we're on to extinguish.
can't those people just relax? You aren't running some computer club in high school and debate if you should run freebsd or linux<p>Just give him some seat or what he wants, stop acting like some series like Suits
Is it so hard to find good people to put on the board? Sam was the CEO OF Y COMBINATOR. Shouldn't he know who is best to put on the board? Find them out?<p>Apparently not?<p>Please say they are not going to put a board just as bad as before.<p>There are no checks and balances. Should Open AI employees be allowed to veto a board decision vote if they have 50% or 67% of the vote? Should Open AI employees be allowed to vote for at least some members to be allowed on the board? Like the Senate voting to confirm a Supreme Court Justice?<p>No matter how good the next board will be, the power rules still apply as before, and the same thing could happen again if no other changes are put in place...