[Timber-6539]

He should be making investors money. That's his #1 job.

Aside from that, who cares about loyalty to the CEO of a tech company. He's a replaceable employee and OpenAI should be able to continue without him.

What were his actual crimes. It's not clear from the previous board nor anyone who's spoken about the matter what those were.

[sumedh]

> That's his #1 job.

That was not is #1 job as per the charter, that why all this controversy started.

[Timber-6539]

That charter became bogus once OpenAI started taking in billions worth of investor money.

[JumpCrisscross]

> What were his actual crimes

Boards don’t judge crimes. And unlike courts, they have no disclosure obligation. Particularly for a private company.

[Timber-6539]

> they have no disclosure obligation.

If true, that board deserved to be dissolved privately without being given the courtesy of raising any voices against Sam or OpenAI's future.

[pclmulqdq]

OpenAI is a nonprofit. Making investors money is explicitly off the table, despite how much Sam Altman wants that to change.

[Timber-6539]

OpenAI opted to become a for-profit company to take money from investors back in 2019.

https://openai.com/blog/openai-lp

[pclmulqdq]

OpenAI did not become for-profit. OpenAI opened a limited-profit arm. The board of directors who fired Sam Altman is the board of the nonprofit.

[Timber-6539]

> limited-profit arm.

This is another one of those recent buzzwords that mean nothing. Like oil conglomerates making "green energy" donations and calling themselves low carbon emitters.

[sudosysgen]

The point is that this was a subsidiary under the control of the non-profit. It was mostly there for tax reasons.

[Timber-6539]

My point is that the non-profit on OpenAI's operating model is just a tag. And the reasons for why this is the case is clear to anyone with 5 minutes of time to research about the company's self described "capped-profit" investment structure.