Shout-out to Sam Altman, who won his board battle and got everything he wanted.
Let this be a lesson to y’all—make sure your board actually meets the needs of your organization.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/22/1214621010/openai-reinstates-sam-altman-as-its-chief-executive
Wasn't the whole idea of the board in this case, though, to make sure that the organization met the needs of the world? And now they've thrown that overboard, in favor of making as much money as possible, apparently.
This mostly seems to have been a victory for the people that don't want to have to worry about dangers or abuse of AI systems, as far as I can tell.
But it hasn't expanded the board, has it? I get the impression it's maybe even smaller than it was before. Unless the old board members are all still members? But I don't think that's the case.
I also don't really understand how the board was replaced. Isn't the board in charge of the company? Did the board approve its own replacement? If not, how could it be legal? Maybe so much pressure was brought to bear that the board actually did approve it?
@ceoln The key phrase is “initial board.” I think what is likely to happen is that it just went through such a disruptive experience that they need to be careful with expanding it.
Also it’s arguable that the board is better matched with what OpenAI has become. They probably need an ethicist on it and Microsoft should have a presence since they’re so deeply invested, but I think that was likely the sticking point as to why this took so long.
@ceoln But as leaders go, you could do a lot worse than Bret Taylor. His reputation is pristine and he’s been around the block a few times.
@ceoln Side note: It pisses me off that Larry freaking Summers is on it, as he’s the kind of guy who always ends up on boards like these, but I get it.
I get it, too; but it seems like an unalloyed bad thing that perhaps we've (unfortunately) normalized.
"the board is better matched with what OpenAI has become"
Well, perhaps! But if, say, "a force for injustice and increasing inequality" is what it's become, then that's not a good thing...
@ceoln It was a nonprofit board managing a company that’s on track to become the next Facebook. You can build for that mission and build safeguards, yes, but because the board was so small it’s hard to see how it neutralized internal tensions to keep things mission-oriented.
@ceoln While the answer to that question is yes, it was a poorly designed board with just six members, some of whom did not have a ton of experience. For a board of this nature, for an organization that large you want perhaps double that amount, so decisionmaking isn’t happening by whim.
Keeping mission oriented is a good idea, but the organization clearly needed to expand its board.