OpenAI's board needs to say something | Hacker News Reader

OpenAI's board needs to say something

theverge.com

34 pointsgoplayoutside14 comments

They're wisely keeping quiet and waiting for the next world event or meme to capture the internet's attention.

All the people who were experts on Covid became experts on Ukraine, then on Israel/Palestine, then on OpenAI, and soon the next thing.

> Ukraine, then on Israel/Palestine, then on OpenAI, and soon the next thing.

I don't get it. This sounds like a list of recent global topics.

What is the relation here?

The same reason the gov releases bad news after 5pm on friday. So it stays out of the headlines.

OP is trying to say hope something comes along to take away from the current "thing".

So this is all some kind of thread of conspiracy?

If not, I have bad news. Entropy, negentropy.. arrow of time..

Things just keep happening. Many of these things don't align with individual preferences.

I don’t belive that was the meaning.

Rather, yes things keep happening and a lot of people’s and media attention is focused on the latest big thing. Therefore, while the recent events at OpenAI and AI in general are in focus, it is wise to stay quiet. When the focus shifts, then you can communicate and hope it stays mostly within the circle of people that you wish to engage with.

OK, I get what you are saying about the board at least.

I also don't assume to know what "the board" means anymore in regard to OpenAI. When Ilya came back on board with Altman, any presumed understanding of the dilemma was lost upon me. I hate to say it, but I don't expect to believe anything that I hear about this story from this point on.

It's that too many people routinely present themself as an authority on whatever is currently in large scale discussion.

People seek attention, so they cling to these serious and popular topics to ride their coattails and get some exposure, reality be dammed for many of them. For most, including me, it's difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, so I can't blame them for laying low.

Ironically, the people who really are experts on startup board politics and governance are the VCs who are often pretending to be experts on other things.

It is annoying because I am a curious person, but I can't say that this silence is a mistake on the part of OpenAI. Perhaps one day all the facts will come out when someone writes a book about this saga. I would be interested to read a book like that! For now, we might just not get to learn the whole story.

Now that the immediate danger seems to be resolved, the board is free to do its job quietly and leave public messaging to the company itself, the way that most startups operate.

> Now that the immediate danger seems to be resolved

What was the most immediate danger exactly? My take on the mainstream reaction is that it appears to have been the perceived loss of financial value if Altman left. Does that sound correct?

I think it depends on who is evaluating the term "danger" here. If you ask the former members of the board, they may say that productizing without sufficient caution is the biggest danger.

Of course, there are many definitions of "sufficient," as well.

The danger that OpenAI blew up in some way, either by firing Sam and having the company fizzle under some new bad CEO, or by having the company quasi acquired by Microsoft and thus leading to typical acquisition badness, or some other sort of chaos.

Personally I don't care about their "financial value" per se, I just like using ChatGPT a lot, I'm excited about the field of AI, and I would be disappointed for the leading startup in AI to fail in such an avoidable way.

They don't have to do anything and shouldn't do anything. The East Coast Establishment has their seat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com