Is he also still at Microsoft? Is this that overemployment everyone was talking about last week?
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
77 points (87.4% liked)
Technology
59378 readers
2618 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
deleted
One of the articles yesterday stated he wasn’t at Microsoft yet. The MS CEO said he could either be reinstated or start an AI initiative at MS
Apparently he’s a big part of why MS bought 49% of OpenAI
I am so confused.
TL;DR; The board basically caved to the demands of the 500+ employees that penned and signed a letter telling them to reinstate Sam Altman and disband the current board.
In addition to reinstating him, most of the board is "quitting".
In this case, the employees won out.
But what about him going to work for Microsoft?
As others have replied, the MS thing is about them having a Plan B in case the board didn't reinstate him.
One way or another he's working for Microsoft here at the end of the day, Microsoft is just making sure they keep him gainfully employed within their control. Their move to hire him was covering their bases.
If the board were to reinstate him, like it has, then MS can rescind their offer and allow him to join the Open AI CEO position again.
Either way, MS didn't want to lose Sam is all this says.
Microsoft owns a major share, not to be confused with a majority share, of the stock, he is going to work for them.
That was more “on the table” if he wasn’t reinstated.
I also suspect there were some inaccuracies in the reporting and headlines around that.
I definitely got the impression that they had already hired him. Thanks.
He is working for Microsoft as be already has been. 🤭
same, didn't all this drama just happen yesterday? We'll have to wait a few months for the doc/drama to come out.
What a shit show
It's amazing how quickly these developments are occurring. My daily news podcasts are only behind a day and yet they seem so out of date as a result at the pace of these changes.
At the end of the day do we really know what prompted this ouster yet?
This entire thing is super confusing… and, I might have missed a lot of things, but it kinda seems to be the board was right? They seemed inexperienced, but they still seemed to be capable of working in the best interest of the company’s vision (and doing so).
Anyway, please fill me in if I’ve missed something crucial.
How in any of this does the board seem to have been right?
This is lemmy so people are going to side with the non-profit side of things here
The best I can understand of the situation is that Sam and lots of the rest of the employees were generally trying to move toward a for-profit model. The board didn’t like this and fired him which is within their power. So if you don’t like a for-profit Open AI then you’ll generally side with the board on this one. (Part of the boards “job” is ensuring that AGI is developed for the benefit of all of humanity. This isn’t an exaggeration it’s literally outlined in their list of duties)
If you only look at how wishy washy the board has been then they look like big dumb dumbs. But given how many employees walked out they had no choice but to try and get him back. At this point many people are expecting the board to resign in full and a new board to be instated but we’ll just have to wait and see
Sam Altman was already CEO of the for-profit arm of OpenAI. The non-profit arm, OpenAI, Inc. had a controlling 51% of shares. So I’m not sure what you mean when you say:
Sam and lots of the rest of the employees were generally trying to move toward a for-profit model.
They were already a for-profit company. What we saw this week is that the non-profit board may have had a 51% controlling share in the stock, but that’s the only control they had, and it was totally on paper. Without the employees of their for-profit arm, and apparently without Altman, the non-profit arm has exactly jack shit, as the entire world now plainly sees.
It was an ethics board and he showed everyone it was a sham.
What a bunch of fucking clowns.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s chief executive, said on X that he was “encouraged by the changes to OpenAI board,” calling it a “first essential step on a path to more stable, well-informed, and effective governance.”
A person close to the board’s deliberations on Tuesday said that Mr. D’Angelo, Tasha McCauley and Helen Toner pressed for certain concessions from Mr. Altman, including an independent investigation into his leadership of OpenAI.
The ouster kicked off efforts by Mr. Altman, 38, his allies in the tech industry and OpenAI’s employees to force the company’s board to bring him back.
But in a head-spinning development just hours later, Microsoft said that Mr. Altman, Mr. Brockman and others would be joining the company to start a new advanced artificial intelligence lab.
Most of OpenAI’s more than 700 employees signed a letter telling the board they would walk out and follow Mr. Altman to Microsoft if he wasn’t reinstated, putting the future of the start-up in jeopardy.
Four board members — Ilya Sutskever, an OpenAI founder; Mr. D’Angelo; Ms. Toner, a director of strategy at Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology; and Ms. McCauley, an entrepreneur and computer scientist — had initially decided to push Mr. Altman out.
The original article contains 856 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!