The intense conflict at OpenAI that captivated the tech world following the ousting of co-founder Sam Altman has been resolved – at least for now. But what can we conclude from this?
Introduction
It seems necessary to eulogize OpenAI – as if OpenAI were dead and a new, albeit not necessarily improved, startup is standing in its place. Altman, the former head of Y Combinator, has returned to leadership, but is his return justified? The newly formed OpenAI board begins on a non-diverse note (that is, it consists entirely of white men), and the charitable goals that the company was founded upon are jeopardized by more extreme capitalistic interests.
The Conflict at OpenAI
OpenAI had a board of six members until Friday morning – Altman, OpenAI’s chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI president Greg Brockman, tech entrepreneur Tasha McCauley, Quora CEO Adam D’Angelo, and Helen Toner, director at Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology. The board was technically linked to a nonprofit organization that holds a majority stake in the profit-making side of OpenAI, giving it full decision-making authority over OpenAI’s profit-making activities, investments, and overall direction.
The Unusual Structure of OpenAI
The unusual structure of OpenAI was established by the company’s founders, including Altman, with the best intentions. The short charter of the nonprofit (500 words) states that the board makes decisions to ensure “that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity,” leaving it up to board members to determine how best to interpret that. “Profit” or “revenue” are not mentioned in this guiding document. Toner once told Altman’s executive team that blowing up OpenAI “would actually be consistent with the mission of the nonprofit.”
Intervention of Strong Investors and Partners
After the board abruptly fired Altman on Friday without informing almost anyone, including the majority of OpenAI’s workforce of 770, the company’s backers began expressing their discontent both privately and publicly.
It has been reported that Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft and a key partner of OpenAI, was “extremely furious” when he learned of Altman’s departure. Vinod Khosla, founder of Khosla Ventures, another supporter of OpenAI, stated on X (formerly Twitter) that the fund wanted Altman back. Meanwhile, Thrive Capital, along with the aforementioned Khosla Ventures, Tiger Global Management, and Sequoia Capital were said to be considering legal action against the board if negotiations over the weekend did not restore Altman.
OpenAI employees did not appear to be at odds with these investors. On the contrary, all of them – including Sutskever, in a notable shift in position – signed a letter threatening the board with mass resignation if they chose not to reverse course. But it must be noted that these employees had a lot to lose in the event of OpenAI’s collapse – regardless of job offers from Microsoft and Salesforce.
OpenAI had been in discussions, led by Thrive, to sell employee shares in a move that would raise the company’s valuation from $29 billion to between $80 billion and $90 billion. Altman’s abrupt departure – along with the questionable change in interim management – led Thrive to back down, jeopardizing the sale. Altman won the five-day battle, but at what cost?
Board
New Management
But now, after several days of tension and anxiety, a kind of solution has been reached. Altman has returned – alongside Brockman, who resigned on Friday in protest against the board’s decision – although he is under an ongoing background investigation into the concerns that led to his firing. You have a new interim board for OpenAI, which meets one of Altman’s demands. Apparently, OpenAI will retain its structure, limiting investor profits and leaving the board free to make decisions not driven by revenue.
The CEO of Salesforce, Marc Benioff, posted on X that “the good guys” have won. But it may be too early to say that. Certainly, Altman has won, outmaneuvering a board that accused him of “not being consistently honest” with board members according to some reports and prioritizing growth over mission. In one example of this alleged behavior, Altman reportedly criticized Toner over a paper she wrote that criticized OpenAI’s approach to safety – to the extent that he attempted to oust her from the board. In another case, “Sutskever was ‘angry’” over the launch of features m
Source: https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/23/openai-emerging-from-the-ashes-has-a-lot-to-prove-even-with-sam-altmans-return/
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item img{
max-width: 100%;
height: auto;
object-fit: cover;
aspect-ratio: 1 / 1;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item.lwrp-empty-list-item{
background: initial !important;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-link .lwrp-list-link-title-text,
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-no-posts-message{
}@media screen and (max-width: 480px) {
.lwrp.link-whisper-related-posts{
}
.lwrp .lwrp-title{
}.lwrp .lwrp-description{
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-multi-container{
flex-direction: column;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-multi-container ul.lwrp-list{
margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;
padding-top: 0px;
padding-bottom: 0px;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-double,
.lwrp .lwrp-list-triple{
“`html
width: 100%;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-row-container{
justify-content: initial;
flex-direction: column;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-row-container .lwrp-list-item{
width: 100%;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item:not(.lwrp-no-posts-message-item){
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-link .lwrp-list-link-title-text,
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-no-posts-message{
};
}
Leave a Reply