I think this outcome was actually much more favorable to D'Angelo's faction than people realize. The truth is before this Sam was basically running circles around the board and doing whatever he wanted on the profit side- that's what was pissing them off so much in the first place. He was even trying to depose board members who were openly critical of open AI's practices.
From here on out there is going to be far more media scrutiny on who gets picked as a board member, where they stand on the company's policies, and just how independent they really are. Sam, Greg and even Ilya are off the board altogether. Whoever they can all agree on to fill the remaining seats, Sam is going to have to be a lot more subservient to them to keep the peace.
Doesn't make sense that after such a broad board capitulation the next one will have any power, and media scrutiny isn't a powerful governance mechanism
When you consider they were acting under the threat of the entire company walking out and the threat of endless lawsuits, this is a remarkably mild capitulation. All the new board members are going to be chosen by D'Angelo and two new board members that he also had a big hand in choosing.
And say what you want about Larry Summers, but he's not going to be either Sam's or even Microsoft's bitch.
What I'd want to say about Larry is that he is definitely not going to care about the whole-society non-profit shtick of the company to any degree comparable with the previous board members, so he won't constraint Sam/MS in any way
Why? As an economist, he perfectly understands what is a public good, why there is a market failure to underproduce a public good under free market, and role of nonprofit in public good production.
Larry Summers has a track record of not believing in market failures, just market opportunities for private interests. Economists vary vastly in their belief systems, and economics is more politics than science, no matter how much math they try to use to distract from this.
I wonder what is the rationale for picking a seasoned politician and economist (influenced deregulation of US finance system, was friends with Epstein, had a few controversies listed there). Has the government also entered the chat so obviously?
They had congressman Will Hurd on the board before. Govt-adjacent people on non-profits are common for many reasons - understanding regulatory requirements, access to people, but also actual "good" reasons like the fact that many people who work close to the state genuinely have good intentions on social good (whether you agree with their interpretation of it or not)
On what premise you assume that D'Angelo will have any say there? At this point he won't be able to do any moves - especially with Larry and Microsoft overseeing all that stuff.
Again, D'Angelo chose Larry Summers and Bret Taylor to sit on the board with him himself. As long as it is the three of them, he can't be overruled unless both of his personal picks disagree with him. And if the opposition to his idea is all that bad, he probably really should be overruled.
His voting power will get diluted as they add the next six members, but again, all three of them are going to decide who the next members are going to be.
A snippet from the recent Bloomberg article:
>A person close to the negotiations said that several women were suggested as possible interim directors, but parties couldn’t come to a consensus. Both Laurene Powell Jobs, the billionaire philanthropist and widow of Steve Jobs, and former Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer were floated, *but deemed to be too close to Altman*, this person said.
Say what else you want about it, this is not going to be a board automatically stacked in Altman's favor.
> Sam, Greg and even Ilya are off the board altogether. Whoever they can all agree on to fill the remaining seats, Sam is going to have to be a lot more subservient to them to keep the peace.
The existing board is just a seat-warming body until Altman and Microsoft can stack it with favorables to their (and the U.S. Government’s) interests. The naïveté from the NPO faction was believing they’d be able to develop these capacities outside the strict control of the military industrial complex when AI has been established as part of the new Cold War with China.
>The existing board is just a seat-warming body until Altman and Microsoft can stack it with favorables to their (and the U.S. Government’s) interests.
That's incorrect. The new members will be chosen by D'Angelo and the two new independent board members. Both of which D'Angelo had a big hand in choosing.
I'm not saying Larry Summers etc going to be in D'Angelo's pocket. But the whole reason he agreed to those picks is because he knows they won't be in Sam's pocket, either. More likely they will act independently and choose future members that they sincerely believe will be the best picks for the nonprofit.
According to this tweet thread[1], they negotiated hard for Sam to be off the board and Adam to stay on. That indicates, at least if we're being optimistic, that the current board is not in Sam's pocket (otherwise they wouldn't have bothered)
They can't take actions to take back the back control from Microsoft and Sam because Sam is the CEO. Even if Sam is of the utmost morality, he would be crazy to help them back into a strong position after last week.
So it's the Sam & Microsoft show now, only a master schemer can get back some power to the board.
Yeah, that's my take. Doesn't really matter if the composition of the board is to Adam's liking and has a couple more heavy hitters if Sam is untouchable and Microsoft is signalling that any time OpenAI acts against its interests they will take steps to ensure it ceases to have any staff or funding.
I’m sorry, but that’s all kayfabe. If there is one thing that’s been demonstrated in this whole fiasco, it’s who really has all the power at OpenAI (and it’s not the board).
> The truth is before this Sam was basically running circles around the board and doing whatever he wanted on the profit side- that's what was pissing them off so much in the first place. He was even trying to depose board members who were openly critical of open AI's practices.
Getting his way: The Wall Street Journal article. They said he usually got his way, but that he was so skillful at it that they were hard-pressed to explain exactly how he managed to pull it off.
Media >= employees? Media >= Sam? I don't think media has any role on oversight or governance.
I think Sam came out the winner. He gets to pick his board. He gets to narrow his employees. If anything, this sets him up for dictatorship. The only other overseers are the investors. In that case, Microsoft came out holding a leash. No MS, means no Sam, which also means employees have no say.
So it is more like MS > Sam > employees. MS+Sam > rest of investors.
From here on out there is going to be far more media scrutiny on who gets picked as a board member, where they stand on the company's policies, and just how independent they really are. Sam, Greg and even Ilya are off the board altogether. Whoever they can all agree on to fill the remaining seats, Sam is going to have to be a lot more subservient to them to keep the peace.