Hacker News Reader

Comment by mmcwilliams | Hacker News Reader

In a non-profit the role of a board is oversight, not appeasement of "investors" or stakeholders/donors. Why would going to them be required to determine if an executive had lied to the board?

View on HN

In any board, the board's role is not strictly oversight but also working to preserve the health of the organization and to meet meet organizational goals.

Pissing off all your stakeholders with a snap decision isn't great governance. Particularly egregious circumstances might make it necessary.

Finding something wrong might require action, but a board's responsibility is also to make the corrective action in a responsible manner that is in the organization's interests.

Yes but they also Determine the organization's interests

more likely I think they found that not letting him go isn't and option due to a breakdown of communication (a formulation which normally implies a fundamental break down of trust)

but the trust of the board completely braking down doesn't mean that e.g. MS doesn't trust or want him anymore as in the end the interest the board have to defend and the ones which stake holder like MS have might be in conflict

so even if it has negative consequences if it must be done it might be easier to get it done fast and then resolve the mess instead of giving other a chance to turn it into an even bigger mess

> a board's responsibility is also to make the corrective action in a responsible manner that is in the organization's interests.

That very well may have happened here. It is important to consider that this is effectively an HR matter and that the results of employee investigations cannot be made public.

There's a lot of speculation about this whole fiasco but strictly speaking the board would risk being in breach of fiduciary--as stewards of a charity--if they believed that an executive had misled them about the use of assets. It may piss off their donors because of a personal preference for the executive in question but it would be their responsibility to act accordingly.

Yes... but my point is that this doesn't preclude them taking a couple of days to figure it out, let stakeholders know, avoid making a particularly dumb public statement, changing their mind because everyone is going to quit, etc.

Here, there's been a statement that there's no malfeasance, too.

The problem here is: Who watches the watchers?

To my eyes, and to many others, it appears the board is power-tripping. Also, OpenAI's unique structure means they have no checks on the board that an investor class would normally give.

It's difficult to envision a thriving future for OpenAI under these circumstances or a world in which they are a significant factor in AI policy. Their early market lead, still a considerable advantage, will not be sufficient to weather the storm brewed by the board's own actions. Losing their market leverage would mean ceding the influential role in shaping AI's future, potentially leaving the giants such as Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and others assuming control and steering the future course of AI, but without the creed to make AI "good."

Put another way, as seen on X: "The AI industry would like to thank the board of OpenAI for giving all of us a chance to catch up"

In a legal sense the people who watch the board members of charities are the IRS and the state regulators in the jurisdiction it's established.

Yeah, the seed of this disaster was probably planted a long time ago, like when they created the hybrid, when they got money from MSFT.

Maybe Ilya doesn't want to be at the forefront of AI building I guess. He probably thinks he can lead it better by not being at the table.

Or who knows.

the hybrid structure was intentional (and known by MS etc.) created to be able to do things like rain in (or fire) a CEO which is more representing the interests of the other minority stake holders then the interests of the non-profit.

So depending on the exact non-public reasons for the communication breaking down it might not be a disaster but the hybrid doing exactly what it was intended to do.

Now the real interesting question is how much MS must have been afraid to be technologically left behind to knowingly enter such a deal with such a huge investment?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com