Hacker News Reader

Comment by tiborsaas | Hacker News Reader

> Nothing wrong with that.

Except that's an open invitation to get sued into oblivion by your investors.

Quote the original OpenAI prospectus, “it would be wise to view an investment in OpenAI Global, LLC in the spirit of a donation”.

The investors would remove whichever numpty attempted to unilaterally wind the company down.

The CEOs of these companies are largely just talking heads and generally interchangeable / hot-swappable with anyone willing to give it a shot.

The importance of CEOs is largely overstated.

openai's removal and reinstatement of sam altman in november 2023, do you think it supports or disproves this?

I would say it does neither, really. The removal issue was a conflict between stakeholders on whether OAI should keep its nonprofit ethos, or move to be a commercial entity. Had Altman been replaced by someone supporting the same line, there wouldn't have been such a fight.

If you wanted to test your hypothesis, you would have to find a situation where leadership change wasn't caused by strategy change.

That's the risk they took right? They got billions for it

CEO wakes up one day and decides to scuttle the company probably isn’t in the contract.

Slowing pacing because of real fears of out of control AI isn't scuttling, if they believe what they're saying.

Of course they don't actually believe their nonsense about AIs doomsday hokey, so full speed ahead.

No, they took the risk of being outcompeted, which is exactly my point

Reply on news.ycombinator.com