[KennyFromIT]

Can someone explain how it's ethical to be working on multiple things like this at the same time (e.g. OpenAI, AI chips, that eye orb crypto thing), but the benefits of each not accruing to the other investors, only to that individual?

I've always had similar questions about folks like Musk and Dorsey. Is it simply lack of proper governance? Is it something written into their contacts? Is this just a Silicon Valley thing? I can only imagine that a lot of people would like to work on many side projects, but their employment agreements forbid it.

[civilitty]

> I've always had similar questions about folks like Musk and Dorsey. Is it simply lack of proper governance? Is it something written into their contacts? Is this just a Silicon Valley thing? I can only imagine that a lot of people would like to work on many side projects, but their employment agreements forbid it.

Folks like Musk and Dorsey have a lot more leverage when they're negotiating their contracts but when it comes to public companies, they get sued all the time over their decisions. The lawsuits are just very drawn out, boring affairs that normally get settled during discovery, before any details actually become public so we don't often hear much about them from the media.

Musk was sued by tons of people over self dealing when Tesla bought SolarCity, for example.

[swatcoder]

It’s “ethical” in that it’s broadly accepted, and it’s accepted because those CEO’s are usually talented dealmakers that deliver huge opportunities to the companies they lead. It’s not new or unique to Silicon Valley. You can see these personalities pop up in commercial and political dealmaking throughout pretty much all of history.

You can get away with a lot when you’re effective.

[barnabee]

Can you explain why it would be unethical, if the contracts with those investors do not explicitly state there will be exclusivity?

Investors buy shares (or similar), and maybe some other rights or benefits with money. They do this with a contract, like any other business deal. There is nothing unethical that I can see about any action vis-a-vis the investors as long as the contracts are honoured (and the action is not otherwise unethical).

Directors and board members do have certain (e.g. fiduciary) duties which my require conflicts of interest to be disclosed and approved, but in the case of Musk and (it seems) at least this particular Sam, investors and others to whom they have this duties can be quite willing to make such approvals.

P.S. for what it's worth, not all companies forbid other work or side projects (I know this because we don't, unless you're planning on simultaneously working for a direct competitor).

[bmitc]

To me, the situation is not necessarily about ethics, although ethics are important to me. It's about conflicts of interest. You cannot maintain no conflicts of interest if you stand to personally gain in one venture from another venture and by pitting them against another or propping one up on the other.

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.

[barnabee]

I agree with that. Government officials and politicians should have effectively no conflicts of interest because they have no real way to seek valid approval from the electorate for them.

For companies, if you have investors, employees, and (implicitly, because they continue to do business with you) customers all supportive of someone remaining in their position in spite of real or potential conflicts of interest then I think it's reasonable to say those are acceptable — and certainly not unethical — conflicts of interest.

The board deserves and has the right to a say, of course, but the extent to which it can justify a position that goes against those other groups is at best debatable even if they are not wholly comfortable with said conflicts. After all, the board should serve the company (customers, employees, shareholders/investors) and not itself. This [1] timeline of OpenAI board changes also seems to suggest some level of opportunism, and the possibility that at other times, or had departing members been replaced, it may not have been possible to get board consensus for firing Sam, either.

[1] https://loeber.substack.com/p/a-timeline-of-the-openai-board

[mannerheim]

Amazon is currently facing a lawsuit for pretty much this exact scenario. Investors are suing because they selected Blue Origin for Kuiper. They also selected ULA and Arianespace for some of the launches, but apparently did not even consider SpaceX. Although note that Bezos is not CEO anymore. He was when Kuiper started development, but as far as I can tell, not when they selected launch providers.

[mattmaroon]

Why would it be unethical? If everything is transparent, who cares? If you don't like that Musk is running 7 companies, don't invest in them.

If it's not a violation of an agreement you've made, it seems ethically fine. Impractical perhaps, but not an ethical issue.

The real question is whether overly-broad IP assignment clauses are ethical.

[voxic11]

How do you know the benefits are accruing to only altman? I thought he claims to have no stake in OpenAI.

[itronitron]

>> I thought he claims to have no stake in OpenAI.

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