Altman sought billions for AI chip venture before OpenAI ouster

I believe the opposite, never heard of any hands-off investors calling themselves co-founders.

(If Altman doesn't want to be restricted by fiduciary duties then he shouldn't be on a board or be an executive.)

How could Altman possibly not use private OpenAI information regarding its hardware needs, when creating an AI hardware company he wants to serve OpenAI? And its competitors?

He could invest in a new AI hardware company created and run by other people (without his specific input) without a conflict. That does not appear to be the case here. He could create an OpenAI hardware subsidiary. Again not what he was doing.

Europe and elsewhere have similar problems. To have an advantage, you need the very best people. But the very best people all want jobs at major US companies, and major US companies want them, too.

Direct and immediate Conflicts of interest can arise if decisions you make for one company could regularly come into conflict with decisions you have to make for the other, example, if he was starting another AI company making rivals to ChatGPT. But in the case of the chip company, nobody has really made a persuasive case of how that would happen here. In terms of interrelatedness, maybe they would build chips customized for openAI. But that would be a potential benefit Open AI, not a conflict!

It's kind of crazy to me that everyone gives CEOs infinite credibility and benefit of the doubt when they make a decision, but then these board members, who don't have cult of personality surrounding them, make a decision within a decision space that is almost their sole job, people flip out and call it emotional, a coup, a power grab, etc. It doesn't make sense.

To me, with the currently available information, it seems quite simple. Altman was constantly at odds with the charter of the non-profit OpenAI and continually was pushing against that charter and performing machinations for his own status and financial benefit that were not in line with the goals of the non-profit OpenAI. It seems quite clear that only one of those things could last. Either the non-profit OpenAI stays so and Altman leaves to go do whatever it is he really wants to do, or OpenAI ceases to be a non-profit and Altman gets to stay. Given it's seemingly the board's prerogative to maintain the non-profit OpenAI, it seems almost trivial as to how this situation has arisen.

It's almost refreshing someone actually called the bluff of a Silicon Valley prophet. But it's not all that surprising everyone in Silicon Valley and their sycophants are doing all they can to try and undermine the credibility of that decision.

Even just the "you keep lying to us, bro" emotional motivation might be enough (not necessarily rational) motivation to fire; despite the person being otherwise qualified for the job, loved by employees and investors, etc.

Microsoft obviously doesn't want to pull the plug on OpenAI, which is why they're pressuring the board to rehire Sam. If the board was truly independent and didn't answer to any other stakeholders, why would they even be talking to Sam right now?

That may well be the case, but I have - yet - to see any evidence of that and as it stands all that I think will happen at this point is that the board will find out where real power is held. Hint: it isn't with them. They're there not because the are free and independent thinkers who will keep AI safe for humanity (even though they may genuinely think so) they are there to serve PR function (to present an image of a set of safe hands to the world) and to serve as a backstop for any kind of regulator that might want to get themselves into the mix. Essentially they're a fig leaf that has now decided that they hold actual power and I think that was a mistake on their part.

Unless they can show how whatever Altman was doing directly caused OpenAI's mission to be endangered (and the various stakeholders seem to be extremely conflicted on this) I don't think their decision will stand, and the amount of blowback incurred alone is a good indication of that. In fact I think it will substantially endanger the governance of OpenAI's activities in the longer term.

Note that they should have resigned or acted much, much earlier if they felt that OpenAI was not acting true to its mission because I really don't see the difference between all of the stuff that has happened so far compared to what they now claim is the reason for the ouster, it may well be the straw that broke the camel's back but then it wouldn't come out in the way that it did. That mostly seems post-fact reason to try to explain away their blunders.

> Do you think Microsoft, who had close personal connections to Altman and who was a direct and outsized beneficiary of his leadership was just going to be like “Ah, yeah, you guys got a point there. Let’s ditch him.”?

No, and that's precisely why they made a mistake because it may not be a viable action without that kind of support.

A board has a number of policy instruments at its disposal: advisories, votes and resignation. They seem to have believed that after identifying Altman as the main cause of concern a vote on his continued tenure was the appropriate instrument. I think that in a 'simple' non profit, one not encumbered by a for-profit part that also happens to have outsider shareholders (besides employees and execs) that is difficult enough, you need to really have a solid case.

But absent a solid case a shotgun vote is about as blunt an instrument as it gets and the use of that instrument is - normally - reserved for crisis situations, such as impending skeletons about to fall out of closets. Then you explain afterwards what was up and everybody will fall in line. That is definitely not happening. And you don't use that approach for someone who is nominally been phenomenally successful at achieving what they set out to do - and that's me speaking as not exactly a friend of Altman's, I think he has ethics issues and that is precisely why in my opinion this was a huge mistake: Sam will likely come out of this as much stronger entrenched than he was before.

> Of course not. They would have used their leverage to prevent his ouster, and the board and its charter would be shown as completely impotent. The cause they were formed over would have been lost.

Not quite, they could have simply made a statement that they felt that their role as oversight board was made impossible because of the way the governance structure was set up, that they are specifically aware of a number of things that OpenAI is doing that are unacceptable and then to resign.

Plenty of precedent for that.

> The firing may also have ruined the effort, but did show in a public show of principle rather than in being quietly disempowered.

That's true, in the end the result may well be identical. But then they've paved the way for an OpenAI without any oversight at all and this is a major problem. I'd much rather have seen that they had used their influence in a more constructive manner because that would have had a larger chance at making it stick. If Altman prevails here - which has a pretty good chance - OpenAI will be effectively without any controls at all. Because obviously the risk of a bunch of placeholders for stakeholders going rogue on Friday afternoon at half an hour to the bell isn't going to be acceptable to shareholders.

> You can see where an idealist who thinks there are real stakes to the cause would choose the public firing of Altman over the mufflwd suffocation of their principles.

Yes, I can see that. Doesn't make it the smartest move though.

Time will tell. I think some people just remember the depths Microsoft has descended to in the past as SOP let alone in response to a group of ideologues putting their stock price at risk.

What do you want to be?

My point is not about relative contributions of value necessarily, which are difficult to compare, but about the structure of employment. The value of a CEO who is doing a good job is not measured by the number of hours they spend on a project. They cannot iterate on solutions the way an engineer can.

The skillset and behavior are different at the meta, macro and micro levels.

The exclusivity clause is fairly common but may not be enforceable depending on where you live, especially if it is for a part-time job (but in IT most jobs are full-time).

> Ignoring risks

This is not even on topic. You seem to think it is literally about the risk of a magical incantation of AGI that someone was going to accidentally utter. Instead it is about working the conversation for support.

> Sam doesn’t value technical leadership

He doesn’t prioritize technical decisions over all, which is want you want from an organizational leader. He has hired and enabled some of the best technical competency in a generation to do things no one thought were possible.

> The board didn’t believe he was being cooperative

“Being cooperative” as defined here is so naive as to be comical on its own. Internal politics are a constant presence. His job is not to be maximally cooperative without regard for strategy.

The only thing that is clear to me is that non profit structures as presently conceived are totally inadequate for the use OpenAI has put them to and in particular are not up to withstanding growth pressures.

Half of the current 4-member board is also involved with GovAI, which is dedicated to AI safety research and advocating regulation. Aren't they more likely to think that OpenAI has been extremely reckless in publicly releasing models and research like they have?

That's good, then he probably won't mind not being there.

If I'm a government official, then it's a conflict of interest if I own a construction company and increase budget for specific constructions to give my company a boost. This obviously happens in our government today, but it doesn't not make it a major problem.

The other perspective is one of grifting. It's similar to con men, who just move from thing to thing gathering up chips at the table. These investors and so-called entrepreneurs are just like that. They are interested in upping their profile at all costs. Their investments and companies are just a means.

I have worked in jobs where I need to report stock holdings more than a certain amount. Imagine a scenario where a low-level worker could affect billion dollar companies' stock enough to benefit from by buying their products on the job. Such a scenario doesn't exist, but the conflicts of interest are still tracked. It is much easier for high profile executives to affect price movements, amd that's why it's more, not less, important for high-level employees.

What fraction was it?

Personally i saw the for-profit subsidiary as a pretty decent middle ground. Obviously this action took place because the current board felt the company moved too far in the for-profit direction. While they do have the technical right and ability to fire Sam and Greg, and it was the "right" thing to do to bring the company back to the non-profit roots, do you really think the employees saw it the same way? How many hours do the board minus Ilya actually contribute in a week to OpenAI? None of the board members minus Ilya were even around before the for-profit subsidy was created so can they truly align the new OpenAI with something they didnt experience?

Also an aspect i didn't really see anywhere but they had 3 board members leave in 2023. How would those board members have voted? I'd guess probably not to fire Sam but i have no clue. Also why did they not add more board members when those left? Did Sam and Greg want the board expanded again but the other 3 kept voting to not expand and to keep the power?

look at it this way, pissing off a trillion dollar company for no good reason is an existential risk no matter what org structure you have.

Non-humans could potentially have a public key; I'm a fan of switching to public keys in general but it doesn't solve the problem of assuring "unique humanness".