Yet it was apparently so time sensitive that there was no time for discussion with key stakeholders. This board appears to have been run by the keystone kops.

It's kind of crazy to me that everyone gives CEOs infinite credibility and benefit of the doubt when they make a decision, but then these board members, who don't have cult of personality surrounding them, make a decision within a decision space that is almost their sole job, people flip out and call it emotional, a coup, a power grab, etc. It doesn't make sense.

To me, with the currently available information, it seems quite simple. Altman was constantly at odds with the charter of the non-profit OpenAI and continually was pushing against that charter and performing machinations for his own status and financial benefit that were not in line with the goals of the non-profit OpenAI. It seems quite clear that only one of those things could last. Either the non-profit OpenAI stays so and Altman leaves to go do whatever it is he really wants to do, or OpenAI ceases to be a non-profit and Altman gets to stay. Given it's seemingly the board's prerogative to maintain the non-profit OpenAI, it seems almost trivial as to how this situation has arisen.

It's almost refreshing someone actually called the bluff of a Silicon Valley prophet. But it's not all that surprising everyone in Silicon Valley and their sycophants are doing all they can to try and undermine the credibility of that decision.

Only read part of what you said but my point was against the comment about board compensations. Human emotions come into play a lot stronger here.

Even just the "you keep lying to us, bro" emotional motivation might be enough (not necessarily rational) motivation to fire; despite the person being otherwise qualified for the job, loved by employees and investors, etc.

There will certainly be lawsuits of course.

Microsoft obviously doesn't want to pull the plug on OpenAI, which is why they're pressuring the board to rehire Sam. If the board was truly independent and didn't answer to any other stakeholders, why would they even be talking to Sam right now?

I’m not saying the board’s decision to remove Altman is or isn’t a good idea, but if they did decide it needed it to be done, running it by Microsoft ahead of time seems like one of the single dumbest things they could have done.

Of course this was going to blow up. Note that two founders and shareholders in the non-profit were presumably there when this vote was taken and the fact that those two didn't see eye to eye with the board was waltzed over because it was just a headcount. That's naive, to put it mildly. A move like that takes weeks if not months to prepare and even then you have to be super careful. You don't do that by taking a snap poll and hoping nobody else will notice.

Do you think Microsoft, who had close personal connections to Altman and who was a direct and outsized beneficiary of his leadership was just going to be like “Ah, yeah, you guys got a point there. Let’s ditch him.”?

Of course not. They would have used their leverage to prevent his ouster, and the board and its charter would be shown as completely impotent. The cause they were formed over would have been lost.

The firing may also have ruined the effort, but did show in a public show of principle rather than in being quietly disempowered. You can see where an idealist who thinks there are real stakes to the cause would choose the public firing of Altman over the mufflwd suffocation of their principles.

That may well be the case, but I have - yet - to see any evidence of that and as it stands all that I think will happen at this point is that the board will find out where real power is held. Hint: it isn't with them. They're there not because the are free and independent thinkers who will keep AI safe for humanity (even though they may genuinely think so) they are there to serve PR function (to present an image of a set of safe hands to the world) and to serve as a backstop for any kind of regulator that might want to get themselves into the mix. Essentially they're a fig leaf that has now decided that they hold actual power and I think that was a mistake on their part.

Unless they can show how whatever Altman was doing directly caused OpenAI's mission to be endangered (and the various stakeholders seem to be extremely conflicted on this) I don't think their decision will stand, and in fact I think it will substantially endanger the governance of OpenAI's activities in the longer term.

Note that they should have resigned or acted much, much earlier if they felt that OpenAI was not acting true to its mission because I really don't see the difference between all of the stuff that has happened so far compared to what they now claim is the reason for the ouster, it may well be the straw that broke the camel's back but then it wouldn't come out in the way that it did. That mostly seems post-fact reason to try to explain away their blunders.

> Do you think Microsoft, who had close personal connections to Altman and who was a direct and outsized beneficiary of his leadership was just going to be like “Ah, yeah, you guys got a point there. Let’s ditch him.”?

No, and that's precisely why they made a mistake because it may not be a viable action without that kind of support.

A board has a number of policy instruments at its disposal: advisories, votes and resignation. They seem to have believed that identifying Altman as the main cause of concern that a vote on his continued tenure was the appropriate instrument. I think that in a 'simple' non profit, one not encumbered by a for-profit part that also happens to have outsider shareholders (besides employees and execs) that is difficult enough, you need to really have a solid case.

But absent a solid case a shotgun vote is about as blunt an instrument as it gets and the use of that instrument is - normally - reserved for crisis situations, such as impending skeletons about to fall out of closets. Not for someone who is nominally been phenomenally successful at achieving what they set out to do - and that's me speaking as not exactly a friend of Altman's, I think he has ethics issues and that is precisely why in my opinion this was a huge mistake: Sam will likely come out of this as much stronger entrenched than he was before.

> Of course not. They would have used their leverage to prevent his ouster, and the board and its charter would be shown as completely impotent. The cause they were formed over would have been lost.

Not quite, they could have simply made a statement that they felt that their role as oversight board was made impossible because of the way the governance structure was set up, that they are specifically aware of a number of things that OpenAI is doing that are unacceptable and then to resign.

Plenty of precedent for that.

> The firing may also have ruined the effort, but did show in a public show of principle rather than in being quietly disempowered.

That's true, in the end the result may well be identical. But then they've paved the way for an OpenAI without any oversight at all and this is a major problem. I'd much rather have seen that they had used their influence in a more constructive manner because that would have had a larger chance at making it stick. If Altman prevails here - which has a pretty good chance - OpenAI will be effectively without any controls at all. Because obviously the risk of a bunch of placeholders for stakeholders going rogue on Friday afternoon at half an hour to the bell isn't going to be acceptable to shareholders.

> You can see where an idealist who thinks there are real stakes to the cause would choose the public firing of Altman over the mufflwd suffocation of their principles.

Yes, I can see that. Doesn't make it the smartest move though.

Any board member who defends a non-profits mission at the cost of being systemically attacked by PR consultants has my respect.

I expect to see more hit pieces by pet journalists, blog posts and vituperative opinion-column articles sent in on Sand Hill Road letterheads.

So you’re probably not launching there, but of course you use it as the first horizon you’ll try sailing towards.

This is the worst possible response. They tanked MS’ stock price for this? MS will have their heads.

Microsoft isn’t going to do shit but throw a little hissy fit over their obvious power play (which they staked the future of their company and resurgence of their brand on) going south. They have no legal recourse and OpenAI has brand recognition and market enthusiasm to weather any shit storm MS tried to throw at them.

So no, if anything this is gonna bring attention to the Microsoft CEO from his own board wondering why exactly he put them in a position to look bad and lose shareholder value without actual ownership of this company.

Time will tell. I think some people just remember the depths Microsoft has descended to in the past as SOP let alone in response to a group of ideologues putting their stock price at risk.

Why no give it away just to have a foot in the door, that tech could come in very handy one day.