It's the board for the non-profit which owns and controls the LLC, and none of the board members have equity in the non-profit.
This wasn't a board of investors/owners like for profit boards.
I mean.. what would it even mean to have equity in a non-profit?
Non-profits are organized fundamentally differently than for profit corporations.
If anything they should have had equity in the for-profit side of the company to ensure that their incentives were aligned, if that is even your point.
I think it brings up a very interesting test case for how this particular kind of ownership structure can fail. In another thread, it strikes the difference between authority and power, which I think was very clearly made here.
That all being said, it seems like things have taken a turn for the worse, and if anything, this board has set the mission of a truly open AI world even further back. There seem to be some real Luddites on the board who seem to think they'll some how be able to cram Pandora back in the box after it has well escaped control. If anything, the should swing the gate wide and at least open source the everything else so as to prevent Microsoft from having a complete monopoly on the future of AI (how things seem to be shaping up).
take a look at that structure.I mean, that seems like a generally fine structure.
I think they maybe could have figured out a different path that didn't involve MS. But otherwise, it seems fine.
The kind of ownership is pretty normal across a wide range of industries, a lot of hospitals in the US operate with a similar structure, NGOs and "foundations," co-ops, independent regulators, etc. Whatever's happening in this case is remarkable but probably not because of how the board operates in this role specifically. We have to know why they fired him to know what's going on but that's unlikely. It could have been completely mundane but that doesn't matter now.
Yeah that's what I thought. I've formed/ been a part of several non-profits that have looked at developing for-profit components to fund the non-profit mission.
I'm a shareholder in a non-profit. Specifically, the Green Bay Packers. It basically means having a unique piece of team memorabilia.
I'm more sympathetic with the (non-profit) board this time. Sam Altman feels like bad news to OpenAI, really. It's more like the workers rally behind Sam Altman because they can get fat paychecks and bail out once the enshittification intensifies.
Right idea, wrong application. We need this kind of solidarity for the workers. Pretty sure the CEO with hundreds of millions of dollars will be okay.
If you've ever been a part of something that had real leadership, this is what it looks like.
Lol, they're upset because their stock dropped when they fired him. That's all this is.
Before you go, "oh, they're non-profit!" They have a for profit subsidiary.
The for-profit portion doesn't have stock like that, either. Not in a publicly traded way where we can actually say the price dropped.
This whole thing is crazy, and it's hard to know as an outsider what the fuck is going on.
Right idea, wrong application. We need this kind of solidarity for the workers. Pretty sure the CEO with hundreds of millions of dollars will be okay.
They're not supporting him because they're worried about his finances. They're supporting him because they have faith in his leadership. If they didn't, they wouldn't care. Lots of CEOs are just empty suits, but Altman clearly has been doing something his workers liked.
Apparently he's been integral in the whole growth process, I had heard that he personally interviewed most folks that are currently part of the team.
From my understanding, Sam Altman is the one pursuing profits, and the non-profit board is the one that was overseeing it being done "safely." If this is the case, it is the non-profit board that should be rallied for.
It's like GMO crops. Currently we have not figured out better methods to feed the planet at scale. If anyone knows how to get the billions of dollars needed to build, run, maintain, and constantly improve such a massive super computer for the world to use, today, by all means let us know. To be clear, I agree with you, but a project this big, without something like international funding (LHC or CERN or ISS) its just not going to happen. As far as I know, for profit is currently the most effective way to funnel resources into a project.
But that's what this is. OpenAI is both for-profit and non-profit. It has a profit arm that made the huge deal with Microsoft and ensures research continues, but there is the non-profit board that oversees them to make sure it's done "safely." If when the non-profit board makes a correction it gets immediately dismantled, then it was all for show and really the profit side is actually unchecked.
Great point. I don't understand what happened yet for all of this to implode so quickly, but something this important is due to hit every emotional fault we have as humans. I think this showed how weak the board was for something like this to happen so quickly. A governing board is supposed to slow down rash decisions, not generate them. Either something drastic happened, or someone acted rashly. This should be a deliberate and rational endeavor. The people building AGI should never be surprised by the decisions being made, if not for the benefit of humanity, at least for the billions of dollars on the line. WTF OpenAI, get your shit together.
A governing board is supposed to slow down rash decisions, not generate them.
Yes, this is the weird part. The board seemed to do what it was designed to do but did it in the worst way possible.
I feel very stupid but isn't OpenAI in Microsoft's portfolio already? What's really at stake?
If he did the board would list that as a reason and be done with it. I haven’t seen any articles connecting those claims to his dismissal.
You can google it. She’s said on numerous occasions and in many many social media posts that he abused her
Everytime smb. says "you can Google it" I think about googling it and expect some weird niche article from some esoteric sites. But then I think, why didn't you Google it and posted an link? Why should I try to find a trustworthy source for your claim?
- Because you asked
- It’s not my claim
- Because it’s a sensitive topic revolving SA and I feel weird sending the link.
Regardless it doesn’t actually matter. I don’t owe you a link. If you want it I told you how to get it.
What I wanted to say is:
If all you have to say "you can google it" then maybe consider being silent.
You're willingly confirming something you rate as sensitive, trying to bring more credibility to it by being an extra shout and referencing a virtually unverifiable needle in a haystack 'authority' as Google, but find the sensitivity a reason for not sharing your information.
How can you reason like this?