6 ms·

3 board members (joined by Ilya Sutskever, who is publicly defecting now) found themselves in a position to take over what used to be a 9-member board, and took

3 board members (joined by Ilya Sutskever, who is publicly defecting now) found themselves in a position to take over what used to be a 9-member board, and took full control of OpenAI and the subsidiary previously worth $90 billion. Speculation is just on motivation, the facts are easy to establish.

bananapub 3y ago
> 3 board members (joined with Ilya Sutskever, who is publicly defecting now) found themselves in a position to take over what used to be a 9-member board, and took full control of OpenAI and the subsidiary previously worth $90 billion. er...what does that even mean? how can a board "take full control" of the thing they are the board for? they already have full control. the actual facts are that the board, by majority vote, sacked the CEO and kicked someone else off the board. then a lot of other stuff happened that's still becoming clear.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think the post is very clear. The subject in that sentence that takes full control is “3 members" not "board". The board has control, but who controls the board changes based on time and circumstances.
  - michaelt 3y ago
    The post could be clearer. It says 3 board members found themselves in a position to take over OpenAI. Do they mean we've seen Sam Altman and allies making a bid to take over the entire of OpenAI, through its weird Charity+LLC+Holding company+LLC+Microsoft structure, eschewing its goals of openness and safety in pursuit of short-sighted riches. Or do they mean we've seen The Board making a bid to take over the entire of OpenAI, by ousting Glorious Leader Sam Altman, while his team was going from strength to strength?
- ketzo 3y ago
  If Sam Altman runs a for-profit company underneath you, are you ever really "in full control"? I mean, they were literally able to fire him... and they're still not looking like they have control. Quite the opposite. I think anyone watching ChatGPT rise over the last year would see where the currents are flowing.
- tyrfing 3y ago
  The board had 3 positions empty, people who left this year, leaving it as a 6-member board. Both Sam Altman and Greg Brockman were on the board; Ilya Sutskever's vote (which he now states he regrets) gave them the votes to remove both, and bring it down to a 4 member board controlled by 3 members that started the year as a small minority.
  - rvba 3y ago
    Those 3 board members can kick out Ilya Sutskever too!
augustulus 3y ago
tangentially, it’s an absolute disgrace that non-profits are allowed to have for-profit divisions in the first place
- culi 3y ago
  This was actually a pretty recent change from 2018. iirc it was actually Newman's Own that set the precedent for this: https://nonprofitquarterly.org/newmans-philanthropic-exception-now-law-will-consequences/ https://nonprofitquarterly.org/newmans-philanthropic-excepti...
- culi 3y ago
  This was actually a pretty recent change from 2018. iirc it was actually Newman's Own that set the precedent for this: https://nonprofitquarterly.org/newmans-philanthropic-exception-now-law-will-consequences/ https://nonprofitquarterly.org/newmans-philanthropic-excepti... > Introduced in June of 2017, the act amends the Revenue Code to allow private foundations to take complete ownership of a for-profit corporation under certain circumstances: The business must be owned by the private foundation through 100 percent ownership of the voting stock. The business must be managed independently, meaning its board cannot be controlled by family members of the foundation’s founder or substantial donors to the foundation. All profits of the business must be distributed to the foundation.
  - Figs 3y ago
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but didn't Mozilla Foundation do that a dozen or so years earlier with their wholly owned subsidiary, Mozilla Corporation? (...and I doubt that's the first instance; just the one that immediately popped into my head.)
  - purplerabbit 3y ago
    The LDS church has owned for-profit entities for decades. Check out the "City Creek Center.
- evantbyrne 3y ago
  It begs the question: why was OpenAI structured this way? For what purposes besides potentially defrauding investors and the government exist for wrapping a for-profit business in a nonprofit? From a governance standpoint it makes no sense, because a nonprofit board doesn't have the same legal obligations to represent shareholders that a for-profit business does. And why did so many investors choose to seed a business that was playing such a cooky shell game?

bananapub 3y ago

> 3 board members (joined with Ilya Sutskever, who is publicly defecting now) found themselves in a position to take over what used to be a 9-member board, and took full control of OpenAI and the subsidiary previously worth $90 billion. er...what does that even mean? how can a board "take full control" of the thing they are the board for? they already have full control. the actual facts are that the board, by majority vote, sacked the CEO and kicked someone else off the board. then a lot of other stuff happened that's still becoming clear.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I think the post is very clear. The subject in that sentence that takes full control is “3 members" not "board". The board has control, but who controls the board changes based on time and circumstances.
- michaelt 3y ago
  The post could be clearer. It says 3 board members found themselves in a position to take over OpenAI. Do they mean we've seen Sam Altman and allies making a bid to take over the entire of OpenAI, through its weird Charity+LLC+Holding company+LLC+Microsoft structure, eschewing its goals of openness and safety in pursuit of short-sighted riches. Or do they mean we've seen The Board making a bid to take over the entire of OpenAI, by ousting Glorious Leader Sam Altman, while his team was going from strength to strength?
ketzo 3y ago
If Sam Altman runs a for-profit company underneath you, are you ever really "in full control"? I mean, they were literally able to fire him... and they're still not looking like they have control. Quite the opposite. I think anyone watching ChatGPT rise over the last year would see where the currents are flowing.
tyrfing 3y ago
The board had 3 positions empty, people who left this year, leaving it as a 6-member board. Both Sam Altman and Greg Brockman were on the board; Ilya Sutskever's vote (which he now states he regrets) gave them the votes to remove both, and bring it down to a 4 member board controlled by 3 members that started the year as a small minority.
- rvba 3y ago
  Those 3 board members can kick out Ilya Sutskever too!

augustulus 3y ago

tangentially, it’s an absolute disgrace that non-profits are allowed to have for-profit divisions in the first place

culi 3y ago
This was actually a pretty recent change from 2018. iirc it was actually Newman's Own that set the precedent for this: https://nonprofitquarterly.org/newmans-philanthropic-exception-now-law-will-consequences/ https://nonprofitquarterly.org/newmans-philanthropic-excepti...
culi 3y ago
This was actually a pretty recent change from 2018. iirc it was actually Newman's Own that set the precedent for this: https://nonprofitquarterly.org/newmans-philanthropic-exception-now-law-will-consequences/ https://nonprofitquarterly.org/newmans-philanthropic-excepti... > Introduced in June of 2017, the act amends the Revenue Code to allow private foundations to take complete ownership of a for-profit corporation under certain circumstances: The business must be owned by the private foundation through 100 percent ownership of the voting stock. The business must be managed independently, meaning its board cannot be controlled by family members of the foundation’s founder or substantial donors to the foundation. All profits of the business must be distributed to the foundation.
- Figs 3y ago
  Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but didn't Mozilla Foundation do that a dozen or so years earlier with their wholly owned subsidiary, Mozilla Corporation? (...and I doubt that's the first instance; just the one that immediately popped into my head.)
- purplerabbit 3y ago
  The LDS church has owned for-profit entities for decades. Check out the "City Creek Center.
evantbyrne 3y ago
It begs the question: why was OpenAI structured this way? For what purposes besides potentially defrauding investors and the government exist for wrapping a for-profit business in a nonprofit? From a governance standpoint it makes no sense, because a nonprofit board doesn't have the same legal obligations to represent shareholders that a for-profit business does. And why did so many investors choose to seed a business that was playing such a cooky shell game?