Hacker News Reader

Comment by jxi | Hacker News Reader

How far should she go to fulfill her interpretation of that duty? Should she even commit crimes in order to keep the non-profit mission? There's 700+ employees that disagree with her interpretation of the company's mission, and yet she stubbornly maintains that hers is correct and that it's her duty to destroy the company (or even sell it to Anthropic) to fulfill her duty.

This is delusion, and she thinks she's some hero that's saving the world by keeping it a non-profit when in reality it's just creating needless chaos and even impacting innocent people's livelihoods.

View on HN

> Should she even commit crimes

probably not, but continuing to publish research papers of the kind that got her the job in the first place seems reasonable maybe

but that's what altman was criticizing her for, not for committing crimes, which as far as anyone knows she hasn't done

> There's 700+ employees that disagree with her interpretation

maybe, maybe not, but the standard way that nonprofits and other companies work is that the employees do what the management tells them, the management does what the board tells them, and the board does what the shareholders or the charter tells them, and in all cases, if they refuse, they get fired

if you're an employee at the american cancer society and you decide that malaria in africa is a more important cause, you probably shouldn't expect to be able to continue using the acs's assets to fight malaria in africa. it might happen, but you shouldn't be at all surprised if you get fired

Again, who's stopping her from publishing research papers? She felt threatened and decided to retaliate by orchestrating firing Sam.

They likely violated RICO by essentially nuking the company's valuation and trying to sell to Anthropic. That is a crime, by the way, so they don't seem above that.

They haven't given even a clear reason for firing Sam. "Not being candid" with no evidence doesn't sound like it directly violates "the charter", but you can really argue anything when you're just "interpreting" the charter.

Anyway, you can make infinite excuses for their actions and justify them infinite ways. Hopefully you agree that the current situation is a giant mess, and it's caused by their narrow misguided interpretation of their job, and it's at the expense of basically everybody else.

> They likely violated RICO

LOL

Nothing you have said is credible or honest.

> They likely violated RICO by essentially nuking the company's valuation and trying to sell to Anthropic.

Really. What is/are the predicate offense(s) for this alleged RICO violation?

She has a legally binding charter (well, assuming OpenAI's charter actually holds up in court, which we may end up seeing as the next logical step in the drama) to use board powers to further the non-profit mission. She does not have a legally binding obligation to commit crimes.

> Should she even commit crimes in order to keep the non-profit mission?

Should you argue in bad faith?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com