>But you do operate on a larger stage and sticking your head in the sand and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist is also not going to work.

I'm sure that's how tobacco and oil executives justify their paycheck: "If I wasn't doing it, someone else would". Probably lots of criminals justify their crimes using similar reasoning too.

Ultimately it's not quite true. If you quit your job at that tobacco or oil company, it's going to take a while to find them a replacement for you. That replacement might not be quite as good at the job (why were you picked for the job in the first place? Probably because you were the strongest candidate.) You aren't going to totally halt EvilCorp by quitting, but you're going to give it a speed bump.

In the case of OpenAI, we have to consider what organization is likely to replace them if they throw in the towel. If it's a more cautious org like Anthropic, OpenAI throwing in the towel could actually be a good thing from the point of view of their charter: https://openai.com/charter

I can see a number of points in time where that goal could have been achieved much better than in the way it happened. For instance: instead of a single deal with a large tech company it should have been a financial deal shared between a syndicate.

That would have been a lot safer than to give MS the keys to the kingdom.

But she was on the board when that happened and presumably agreed to the deal or she could have resigned.

And it's not quite the tobacco company we're talking about here. I'm more in line to compare it to the Manhattan project.

That's not obvious to me. Suppose OpenAI deliberately partners with a number of different infra providers. That creates a bunch of drag because they have to create a compatibility layer for staying agnostic to the underlying infra. And the outcome in a situation like this would probably be fairly similar: Since big tech companies are focused on making a buck, they would probably pressure the board to do whatever they think will be most profitable, just like Microsoft.

Additionally, the role of the board is to supervise the CEO, not make strategic decisions, no? If the MS partnership was a mistake, Sam is the primary person to blame here.

I'm seeing a lot of "Monday morning quarterback" in this thread

> I'm seeing a lot of "Monday morning quarterback" in this thread

That's fine but you are not forced to participate.

> That's not obvious to me. Suppose OpenAI deliberately partners with a number of different infra providers. That creates a bunch of drag because they have to create a compatibility layer for staying agnostic to the underlying infra. And the outcome in a situation like this would probably be fairly similar: Since big tech companies are focused on making a buck, they would probably pressure the board to do whatever they think will be most profitable, just like Microsoft.

So, either you are 'OpenAI' and that means open to all or you are Microsoft AI, licensing your tech to one of the least ethical and most wealthy companies in the world. If the board didn't have anything to say about that at the time and if they didn't resign en masse you have to assume that they are ok with it.

> Additionally, the role of the board is to supervise the CEO, not make strategic decisions, no? If the MS partnership was a mistake, Sam is the primary person to blame here.

So are they or are they not there to supervise the CEO?

In my view a board exists to protect the interests of the stakeholders guided by a charter. OpenAI sees 'humanity' (whatever that means to them) as their stakeholders and that trumps each and every other party involved. But it is unclear whether their actions really benefit those stakeholders or if it is just people being people.

So far I'm seeing a lot of the latter and only little bits of the former.

I would not say that it is fair comparison in this case. People do the best with the control they have.

In this case, if your company fails to provide for greater good, then it is best to destroy it. And it also shows some example to others. Whatever others do, you have no power. I does not matter if you pretent or not.

Comparison works only if you could do something about it.

Yes, but then maybe you should realize that you are out of your depth and abstain. Because clear as day this kind of power is actively being sought by many operators and if OpenAI was 'the good guys' then any chance of the good guys getting a head start has just been blown out of the water.

If she agreed with the Microsoft deal but not with what followed that too would be hopelessly naive. Microsoft + ethics?

There are no good guys only good deeds

> If she agreed with the Microsoft deal but not with what followed that too would be hopelessly naive. Microsoft + ethics?

I guess the main problem here is that nobody knows properly what this deal contains and how it was made. I believe CEO has power to do such deal alone?

That depends on the mandate. He would bind the company but it is possible that his mandate specifically forbids deals that include either IP or exclusivity.

But what is interesting is that until MS got involved OpenAI was struggling for funding and talent, and afterwards it took off like a rocket.

I think the talent was already there but the power of Azure servers was the critical booster. We don’t even know how much Microsoft has actually paid instead of just counting Azure credits.

Yes, Nadella has a point: without MS OpenAI wouldn't be where it is today, but the reverse is also true: without OpenAI MS wouldn't be where it is today.

arguably no one in openai should. the ability to develop software has nothing to do with the ability to make decisions for the world at large.

That may well be true. But that invites musings about nationalization. Which I'm sure more than one person has been thinking about already.

This is an all but undeclared arms race.