Re:Ousted OpenAI CEO Altman planning new AI venture, sources...
by mrandish on Saturday November 18, 2023 @04:53PM
(#38324939)
Unattributed sources quoted by some media outlets say that Altman has recently been fund-raising for a possible new venture with potential investors.
Given the context, I assume this was probably presented to the board as a personal side project outside of his duties as OpenAI CEO. If so, then the "not consistently candid" in the board's statement might be related to aspects of that, perhaps in terms of degree, focus, timing or even potential fund-raising or recruiting.
Speculating, I can imagine a scenario where Altman was working with the board to orchestrate his eventual exit to the new endeavor or perhaps a dual role. If so, the board may have concluded Altman's outside activities were more extensive than he had disclosed and crossed the fuzzy line between discussion and exploration to execution - which could obviously create untenable conflicts of interest for Altman which the board might be required act on.
I like this hypothesis because it's consistent with the statements and actions so far as well as seeming reasonable given the massive opportunity and Altman's entrepreneurial nature. Recall that GPUs have been OpenAI's largest costs and limiting factor. In fact, as OpenAI's CEO, Altman could have argued to the board that OAI needed to vertically integrate 'down the stack' to designing it's own hardware, especially since their largest competitors already have. If the board balked at this direction as inconsistent with the non-profit's charter (and potentially even adverse to the mission of "safe AI" as opposed to decelerating progress), Altman may have asked the board for permission to explore the opportunity as a side project. Assuming the board agreed, there would likely have been specific disclosure requirements of Altman as well as limits on certain activities. In such a fast-moving, dynamic environment, this seems like the kind of situation which might lead to miscommunication and at least the appearance of material omission or even misrepresentations.
Such a breakdown in trust could lead to a situation where Altman could reasonably think he's still working with the board toward a negotiated and stage-managed exit but the board could reasonably conclude the situation had gotten out of control and exceeded their prior understanding with Altman - requiring board action to remain in compliance with the organization's charter and their legal duties as board directors.
Given the context, I assume this was probably presented to the board as a personal side project outside of his duties as OpenAI CEO. If so, then the "not consistently candid" in the board's statement might be related to aspects of that, perhaps in terms of degree, focus, timing or even potential fund-raising or recruiting.
Speculating, I can imagine a scenario where Altman was working with the board to orchestrate his eventual exit to the new endeavor or perhaps a dual role. If so, the board may have concluded Altman's outside activities were more extensive than he had disclosed and crossed the fuzzy line between discussion and exploration to execution - which could obviously create untenable conflicts of interest for Altman which the board might be required act on.
I like this hypothesis because it's consistent with the statements and actions so far as well as seeming reasonable given the massive opportunity and Altman's entrepreneurial nature. Recall that GPUs have been OpenAI's largest costs and limiting factor. In fact, as OpenAI's CEO, Altman could have argued to the board that OAI needed to vertically integrate 'down the stack' to designing it's own hardware, especially since their largest competitors already have. If the board balked at this direction as inconsistent with the non-profit's charter (and potentially even adverse to the mission of "safe AI" as opposed to decelerating progress), Altman may have asked the board for permission to explore the opportunity as a side project. Assuming the board agreed, there would likely have been specific disclosure requirements of Altman as well as limits on certain activities. In such a fast-moving, dynamic environment, this seems like the kind of situation which might lead to miscommunication and at least the appearance of material omission or even misrepresentations.
Such a breakdown in trust could lead to a situation where Altman could reasonably think he's still working with the board toward a negotiated and stage-managed exit but the board could reasonably conclude the situation had gotten out of control and exceeded their prior understanding with Altman - requiring board action to remain in compliance with the organization's charter and their legal duties as board directors.