[sackfield]

I would be thrilled, if I were board member I would want the organisation to succeed and ChatGPT can't be described as anything other than an unmitigated success. I wouldn't feel the need to make myself the main character of the story and act like my permission was required for innovation. But that's just me.

[threeseed]

It is absolutely just you.

Almost everyone would prefer not to have repeats of Enron, FTX etc where poor corporate governance and unethical behaviour is tolerated just because the company is making lots of money.

[sackfield]

I'm not sure OpenAI compares to Enron or FTX in terms of unethical behaviour or financial fraud. The only similarities might be, funnily enough, disfunctional boards (or in FTX's case, no board).

[threeseed]

No one thought anything was wrong at Enron or FTX until there was.

[ben_w]

If OpenAI gets as far with AI as they want to, then it is absolutely imperative that nobody there is accidentally leaning on the scales, let alone actually doing anything (even something minor) with selfish intent.

Even if they're "just another tech firm", that's still enough for them to be another Facebook with the Cambridge Analytica and Rohingya scandals, and many people would like to make sure such things don't repeat.

[sackfield]

We should feel great that they now have a competent board that will make sure of that.

[threeseed]

Nobody should feel great about the situation at OpenAI.

Especially with all of the people leaving and publicly criticising the companies trust and safety stance.

[ben_w]

The models get red-teamed, do the corporate structures?

[borski]

Yet.

[kklisura]

I reckon being a board member is more than having a front row seat to a business

[sackfield]

It is. Like I said above I would be concerned about the continuing success of the organisation according to its operating principles. Destroying the company over childish disputes would not be fulfilling that charter. I'm very glad OpenAI got the competent board they deserved after this event.