Hacker News Reader

Comment by DebtDeflation | Hacker News Reader

>She previously cofounded Fellow Robots

Near as I can tell they never actually launched a product. Their webpage is a GoDaddy parked domain page. Their Facebook page is pictures of them attending conferences and sharing their excitement for what Boston Dynamics and other ACTUAL robotics companies were doing.

>she launched with a colleague from Singularity University

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_Group

Just lol.

>then cofounded GeoSim Systems

Seems to be a consulting business for creating digital twins that never really got off the ground.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/tasha-m-25475a54/details/experie...

It doesn't appears she's ever had a real job. Someone in the other thread commented that her profile reeks of a three letter agency plant. Possible. Either that or she's just a dabbler funder by her actor husband.

View on HN

Lol. You literally know nothing about this person other than what you found online. She could be brilliant or offer a perspective the business needs.

Suggesting that some inarguably brilliant technologists and business people would invite a moron to crash their party makes you look petty (at best) and like an idiot (at worst)

Don't you think it's weird that maybe the most important company in 2023 has people with no documented experience on its board?

I'm ambivalent because I don't know what the board and executive team are trying to accomplish.

And neither does anyone else on this forum.

The Monday morning quarterbacking is hysterical.

Treating the non-profit OpenAI board like the board for a regular for-profit is weird.

This isn't just a non-profit holding company for tax purposes - the whole thing is structured with the intent of giving the non-profit complete control over the for-profit to help achieve the non-profit's charter.

The board being full of typical business people would likely be counterproductive to the goal of staying focused on the non-profit charter vs. general commercial business interests.

I don't know enough about most of the board to have any sort of real judgment about their ability, but there's a lot of comments here that are judging board members based on very different criteria than what they were actually brought in for.

I can't believe I'm going to write this.. but:

So what? Regardless of launch/no launch, the company was a flop. This is a cheap shot. Just because someone was successful in the past (or not) is not an automatically relevant signal they'll be a great fit when placed in a different domain. Sometimes they have other relevant background and experience, and other times... Maybe they're just connected. What is the level of scrutiny of qualifications in other companies, even public ones? When looking closely at other companies, I've noticed board compositions can vary substantially. As outsiders, we're undoubtedly missing part of the context about what is relevant (to the board) or not.