this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
1496 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

59578 readers
3661 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Pohl@lemmy.world 359 points 1 year ago (16 children)

If you ever needed a lesson in the difference between power and authority, this is a good one.

The leaders of this coup read the rules and saw that they could use the board to remove Altman, they had the authority to make the move and “win” the game.

It seems that they, like many fools mistook authority for power. The “rules” said they could do it! Alas they did not have the power to execute the coup. All the rules in the world cannot make the organization follow you.

Power comes from people who grant it to you. Authority comes from paper. Authority is the guidelines for the use of power, without power, it is pointless.

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 138 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Well, surely it's premature to be making grand statements like this until it actually causes a reversal?

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.one 78 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even if it doesn't, the consequences of the board ignoring this is catastrophic to the company. One way or another, the workers will have a victory here.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 90 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony.

[–] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 60 points 1 year ago

Strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for government!

load more comments (1 replies)

We don’t yet know the cause of this power struggle, so hard to say of they were trying to stage a coup or trying to prevent something else.

But regardless it appears they dun goofed

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] ribboo@lemm.ee 326 points 1 year ago (16 children)

It’s rather interesting here that the board, consisting of a fairly strong scientific presence, and not so much a commercial one, is getting such hate.

People are quick to jump on for profit companies that do everything in their power to earn a buck. Well, here you have a company that fires their CEO for going too much in the direction of earning money.

Yet every one is all up in arms over it. We can’t have the cake and eat it folks.

[–] TurtleJoe@lemmy.world 103 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's my opinion that every single person in the upper levels is this organization is a maniac. They are all a bunch of so-called "rationalist" tech-right AnCaps that justify their immense incomes through the lens of Effective Altruism, the same ideology that Sam Bankman-fried used to justify his theft of billions from his customers.

Anybody with the urge to pick a "side" here ought to think about taking a step back and reconsider; they are all bad people.

[–] LeroyJenkins@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago

even outside the upper tiers, high paid tech workers do mental gymnastics to rationalize the shittiness they do via their companies while calling themselves liberal. motherfuckers will union bust for their company for a larger TC next year then go on LinkedIn or Facebook and spin it like "I successfully destroyed a small town's economy, killed a union forming in the division I manage, and absolutely threw my coworkers under the bus this year. My poor father swept countless floors until his hands bled so I can be here today and that's why I support the small working man and will never forget where I came from #boss"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] rookie@lemmy.world 58 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, here you have a company that fires their CEO for going too much in the direction of earning money.

Yeah, honestly, that's music to my ears. Imagine a world where organizations weren't in the business of pursuing capital at any cost.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 56 points 1 year ago

Sounds like the workers all want to end up with highly valued stocks when it goes IPO. Which is, and I'm just guessing here, the only reason anyone is doing AI right now.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This was my first thought... But then why are the employees taking a stand against it?

There's got to be more to this story

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

Bandwagoning. The narrative is so easy to spin "hey the evil board of directors forced our beloved CEO to leave. If they do that to /US/ we need to do it back to /them/.

I think that would get most people with moral concerns on board, the rest are just tech bros and would fully support a money grubbing unethical CEO if they thought they might get a bigger bonus out of it.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 239 points 1 year ago (23 children)

I'd like to know why exactly the board fired Altman before I pass judgment one way or the other, especially given the mad rush by the investor class to re-instate him. It makes me especially curious that the employees are sticking up for him. My initial intuition was that MSFT convinced Altman to cross bridges that he shouldn't have (for $$$$), but I doubt that a little more now that the employees are sticking up for him. Something fucking weird is going on, and I'm dying to know what it is.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 83 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Wanting to know why is reasonable but it’s sus that we don’t already know. Why haven’t they made that clear? How did they think they could do this without a solid explanation? Why hasn’t one been delivered to set the rumors to rest?

It stinks of incompetence, or petty personal drama. Otherwise we’d know by now the very good reason they had.

[–] Tangent5280@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If there was something illegal going on, then all parties involved would have incentive to keep it under wraps.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] los_chill@programming.dev 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Altman wanted profit. Board prioritized (rightfully, and to their mission) responsible, non-profit care of AI. Employees now side with Altman out of greed and view the board as denying them their mega payday. Microsoft dangling jobs for employees wanting to jump ship and make as much money possible. This whole thing seems pretty simple: greed (Altman, Microsoft, employees) vs the original non-profit mission (the board).

Edit: spelling

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 34 points 1 year ago

The only explanation I can come up with is that the workers and Altman both agreed in monetizing AI as much as possible. They're worried that if the board doesn't resign, the company will remain a non-profit more conservative in selling its products, so they won't get their share of the money that could be made.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 224 points 1 year ago (10 children)

You're not going to develop AI for the benefit of humanity at Microsoft. If they go there, we'll know "Open"AI's mission was all a lie.

[–] Gork@lemm.ee 137 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Yeah Microsoft is definitely not going to be benevolent. But I saw this as a foregone conclusion since AI is so disruptive that heavy commercialization is inevitable.

We likely won't have free access like we do now and it will be enshittified like everything else now and we'll need to pay yet another subscription to even access it.

[–] MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world 139 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

"Hey Bing AI can I get a recipe that includes cinnamon"

"Sure! Before we begin did you hear about the great Black Friday deals at Sephora"

"Not interested"

"No problem. You're using query 9 of 20 this month. Do you want to proceed?"

"Yes"

"Before we begin, Bing Max+ has a one month trial starting at just $1 for your first month*. Want to give that a try?"

"Not now"

"No problem. With cinnamon you can make Cinnamon Rolls"

"What else?"

"Sure! You are using query 10 of 20 this month. Before I continue did you hear the McRib is back for a limited time at McDonald's. (ba, da, ba, ba, ba) I'm lovin' it."

[–] Valthorn@feddit.nu 76 points 1 year ago

Please drink one verification can!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't have free access. The best models have always been safeguarded behind paywalls, you have access to parlor tricks and demo shows. This product was born enshittified already. It's crap that's only has passable use for mega corporations.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] just_change_it@lemmy.world 150 points 1 year ago (7 children)

It's supposed to be a nonprofit benefiting humanity, not a pay day for owners or workers. The board isn't making money off of it.

Giving microsoft control is a bad idea. (duh?)

Giving a single person control is a bad idea, per sam altman.

[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 95 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

My take on what happened (we are now at step 8):

  1. Sam wants to push for more & quicker profit with MS and VC backing, but board resists, constant conflicts
  2. Sam aligns with MS, hatch a plan on how to gut OpenAI for its know-how, ppl, and tech, leaving the non-profit part bleeding out in the gutter
  3. Sam & MS set a trap: Sam crosses some red lines, maybe taking commercial decisions without board approval. Potentially there was also some whispering in key ears (e.g, Ilya) by seemingly helpful advisors/VCs to push & pull at the same time on both sides
  4. Board has enough after Sam doesn’t back down, fires him & other co-founder guy
  5. MS and VCs go full attack to discredit board. After some info gathering, they realize they have been utterly fucked
  6. Some chaos, quick decision of appointing/replacing ppl, trying to manage the fire, even talking to Sam (btw this might have been a fallback option for MS, that the board reinstates him with more control and guardrails, weakening the power of the non-profit)
  7. Sam joins MS, masks are off
  8. Employees on the sinking ship revolt, even Ilya realizes he was manipulated/fucked
  9. OpenAI dead, key ppl join MS, tech and rest of the company bought for scraps. Non-profit part dead. Capitalist victory

Source: subjective interpretation/deduction based on the available info and my experience working as a management consultant for 10 years (dealing with lot of exec politics, though nothing this serious)

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 147 points 1 year ago

You also informed the leadership team that allowing the company to be destroyed "would be consistent with the mission."

You are God damned right that shutting everything down is one of the roles of a non-profit Board focused on AI safety.

[–] Jolteon@lemmy.zip 99 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Later: All 195 employees of OpenAI in support of board of directors.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] InvaderDJ@lemmy.world 80 points 1 year ago (7 children)

The biopic on this whole thing is going to be hilarious. The rumors are that the board didn’t like how fast the CEO is moving with AI and they’re afraid of consequences of possible AGI (which I don’t think these new LLMs are even close to) but that doesn’t feel like what modern boards of directors are so I don’t trust it.

It’s just baffling how this golden goose was half way strangled in the nest.

They are a non-profit board set up precisely to exercise caution over rapid AI development.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 79 points 1 year ago (15 children)

Muuuhahahaha.... What a shitshow this organisation has become.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 71 points 1 year ago
[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 69 points 1 year ago

I feel like this is Satya's wet dream. He woke up on Friday like normal and went to bed on Sunday owning what, 85% of OpenAI's top people? Acquisitions aren't usually that easy.

It seems obvious Sam would want to grow his company to infinity. That's what VC people do. The board expecting otherwise is strange in hindsight. Now they can oversee the slow, measured adoption of much smaller business while the rest of the team shoots for the stars.

Anyways, RIP y'all. Skynet launches next year.

[–] CorneliusTalmadge@lemmy.world 52 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Image Text:

To the Board of Directors at OpenAl,

OpenAl is the world's leading Al company. We, the employees of OpenAl, have developed the best models and pushed the field to new frontiers. Our work on Al safety and governance shapes global norms. The products we built are used by millions of people around the world. Until now, the company we work for and cherish has never been in a stronger position.

The process through which you terminated Sam Altman and removed Greg Brockman from the board has jeopardized all of this work and undermined our mission and company. Your conduct has made it clear you did not have the competence to oversee OpenAl.

When we all unexpectedly learned of your decision, the leadership team of OpenAl acted swiftly to stabilize the company. They carefully listened to your concerns and tried to cooperate with you on all grounds. Despite many requests for specific facts for your allegations, you have never provided any written evidence. They also increasingly realized you were not capable of carrying out your duties, and were negotiating in bad faith.

The leadership team suggested that the most stabilizing path forward - the one that would best serve our mission, company, stakeholders, employees and the public - would be for you to resign and put in place a qualified board that could lead the company forward in stability. Leadership worked with you around the clock to find a mutually agreeable outcome. Yet within two days of your initial decision, you again replaced interim CEO Mira Murati against the best interests of the company. You also informed the leadership team that allowing the company to be destroyed "would be consistent with the mission."

Your actions have made it obvious that you are incapable of overseeing OpenAl. We are unable to work for or with people that lack competence, judgement and care for our mission and employees. We, the undersigned, may choose to resign from OpenAl and join the newly announced Microsoft subsidiary run by Sam Altman and Greg Brockman. Microsoft has assured us that there are positions for all OpenAl employees at this new subsidiary should we choose to join. We will take this step imminently, unless all current board members resign, and the board appoints two new lead independent directors, such as Bret Taylor and Will Hurd, and reinstates Sam Altman and Greg Brockman.

  1. Mira Murati
  2. Brad Lightcap
  3. Jason Kwon
  4. Wojciech Zaremba
  5. Alec Radford
  6. Anna Makanju
  7. Bob McGrew
  8. Srinivas Narayanan
  9. Che Chang
  10. Lillian Weng
  11. Mark Chen
  12. Ilya Sutskever
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sanyanov@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

Ain't that simply a curtain drama for practical acquisition of OpenAI by Microsoft, circumventing potential legal issues?

This started months ago.

[–] redcalcium@lemmy.institute 36 points 1 year ago

We, the undersigned, may choose to resign from OpenAl and join the newly announced Microsoft subsidiary run by Sam Altman and Greg Brockman.

Let's have all OpenAI employees move to Microsoft. What could possibly go wrong?

[–] 9thSun@midwest.social 35 points 1 year ago

This whole situation happened so fast and it confuses me

[–] xenomor@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

I don’t know enough about why the board did this, or what Altman was up to, to form a meaningful opinion about what happened. However, I do know that anything that empowers Microsoft in this industry is a bad thing. Microsoft is a bad actor in every regard and will always behave in ways that ultimately produce worse products than we would get otherwise. Given the potential implications of these technologies, and all the reasons to not trust Microsoft to protect public interests, this news is terrible.

load more comments
view more: next ›