Agreed the article is more about probing the board’s weakness.
But the board seems to have a weak hand. It can decide to disappoint the for profit investors. But it doesn’t own Sam, or the vast majority of the workers, and maybe not much of the know how. And they can walk if the board disappoints them.
The board’s altruism might be great, but it lacks the legal tools to do what it wants, against organized labor backed by unlimited capital.
That's only because the key players have no reason to compete.
They don't want to run a developer/enterprise ChatGPT platform.
Google cares about Search, Apple about Siri, Meta about VR/Ads. But those three are interesting heavily in their own LLMs which at some point may better OpenAI.
I'd like to hear more about the board's argument before deciding that this was "virtuous board vs greedy capitalist". The motivations for both sides is still unclear.
Seems unusual for a nonprofit not to have a written investigative report or performance review conducted by a law firm or auditor. Similar to what happened with Stanford's ousted president but more expedited if matters are more pressing.
But the board seems to have a weak hand. It can decide to disappoint the for profit investors. But it doesn’t own Sam, or the vast majority of the workers, and maybe not much of the know how. And they can walk if the board disappoints them.
The board’s altruism might be great, but it lacks the legal tools to do what it wants, against organized labor backed by unlimited capital.