• flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How embarrassing must it be for both sides if no one is willing to go public?
      If it were something illegal, they wouldn’t be holding back. Unless the board is somehow complicit by default.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah when I heard this, and after I read the available information, I was like did they walk in on him f****** a dog in his office or something? Like the secrecy around his dismissal is so total. But then all these people he has so much support within the company. Very confusing

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        The boards job is to deliver shareholder value. Ergo, it may or may not be something illegal, all ypu can guarantee is that they think that revealing information might lose shareholder value.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They don’t have shareholders. Open AI is a nonprofit. So the job of the board is literally to do what is best for the organization, I can’t see how it could possibly be good for the organisation to fire the CEO and then point right refused to elaborators to the reason.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If OpenAI actually achieves their stated goal then any amount of money he demands will be worth it. They will basically be the company that controls the world, they will have so much money that they won’t actually even care how much money they have.

    • 31337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Official statement is that Altman was not being “candid” with the board. The current best theory I’ve seen is that Altman is investing in AI hardware startups (he is, in fact) and likely planning on having OpenAI doing business with them. buying them, or merging with them in the future.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, good read. I saw that “candid” comment as well, but didn’t think of a possible connection. That makes sense. Thanks

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The board really needs to explain to the investors why he was fired, It is utterly ridiculous that they don’t know.

      He may very well have been fired for a reasonable reason, but I’m not seeing it because why would you just fire someone out of the blue and then not release a statement if you’ve got reasonable cause? The only reason to act like they’ve got something to hide is because they do have something to hide.

    • droopy4096@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ars posted that there’s some evidence to suggest board wanted to chase profit over ethics or somesuch. Altman apparently did not listen.

      • 5C5C5C@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        You have that totally backwards.

        The board (which is the board of the non-profit) wanted the company to be more focused on its mission and less profit-driven. Altman is the one that’s been letting Microsoft get its tendrils around OpenAI and push a narrative that everything must be closed off and profit focused.

      • there1snospoon@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I thought it was the reverse, and Altman wanted to push forward recklessly while the board wanted to hew closer to ethical guidelines?

  • editediting@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    A plague on all their houses. AI should benefit the people, not corporations or the effective altruism cult.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    OpenAI investors are pushing to bring back Sam Altman as CEO one day after he was ousted by the board, according to people familiar with the matter says CNBC.

    Microsoft, Tiger Global and venture firm Thrive Capital are among several of OpenAI’s top backers that are part of an effort to reinstate Altman, said a source, who asked not to be named because discussions are confidential.

    OpenAI’s announcement late Friday that the company was firing Altman and replacing him on an interim basis with technology chief Mira Murati sent shockwaves across Silicon Valley.

    OpenAI has emerged as the hottest startup on the planet since launching its ChatGPT chatbot last year and spurring a rush of investment generative artificial intelligence market.

    Microsoft, which has invested billions of dollars in OpenAI and has a close technology partnership with the company, was surprised by the announcement.

    In addition to ousting Altman, the company removed Brockman, the chairman, from his board leadership position but said he would remain as president.


    The original article contains 303 words, the summary contains 164 words. Saved 46%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • quindraco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Those investors are morons if they think they’re entitled to an opinion. OpenAI already has their money.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re investors, as in partial owners of the business. That means that they do get to express their opinion. If enough of them want Altman back, they could vote out the old board and put in a board that represents their own interests as owners.