|
|
|
|
|
|
by lompad
943 days ago
|
|
|
You keep claiming this across the entire thread, yet people explained to you dozens of times that the board is the ultimate arbiter over the nonprofit. They are not going to get ousted, unless they start killing people or anything like that. They all have enough money to be able to fight any legal challenges. This is not your regular, poor nonprofit paying slave wages. You always claim "precedent" - so please show me, when has the board of a nonprofit even close to as high profile as open AI ever been removed by external pressure? As far as I can tell, we're on entirely new territory here. I for one am glad Ilya is prevailing here - sama is the typical SV sociopath pushing growth at any cost. We really don't need any more of those guys at a place this important. |
|
|
It is going pretty much according to the few ways in which it could go: lawsuit with unknown outcome (most probably by MSFT or other minority shareholder), reversal, board (or selected board members) resigns. The future timeline in which nothing changes and the board holds fast is not one that I think is viable, assuming Altman didn't murder anybody in broad daylight.
And while I in principle agree with your character assessment (though I wouldn't put it in those terms, I'm not qualified to diagnose people to that degree) that still doesn't mean you can do what you can do in any way that you want to do it without consequences. The board forgot for a hot moment that they are first and foremost representatives of the stakeholders and govern accordingly. To oust one founder and cause another founder to walk you have to have grave reasons and solid support from all of the stakeholders.
So far I have not seen these so the decision can't stand as it is. It's entirely possible that those grave reasons exist, and even then this should have been handled with some tact, not the blunt side of the axe.