🏅 Top traders

YES - https://openai.com/blog/sam-altman-returns-as-ceo-openai-has-a-new-initial-board

@IsaacKing resolve please

@Joshua interesting...

@JeffreyAnnaraj ...Why? If something new has happened, I can't learn about it without a source.

@IsaacKing https://x.com/openai/status/1730030975931846939?s=46&t=77BALrGcoxONj26uBU1LBA

Does this work?

@JeffreyAnnaraj Yes, 5 days after you originally claimed without justification that this market should resolve, the relevant event has now occurred.

looks like it should be resolved

I think now I'll have to figure out a way to remove Sam personally so that @JamesGrugett doesn't win our leave so dramatically.

(Just kidding, congrats)

@MP We should have known the tech CEO would be good at predicting things related to tech CEOs!

He's back.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/11/22/sam-altman-back-openai/

Sama says deal just struck. https://twitter.com/sama/status/1727206691262099616

This market is wild, from >80% to <5% back to >80%...

@ersatz The situation is pretty wild!

timing of this post, lol

Sam is joining Microsoft:

Executive Editor at The Information, so credible.

A legal argument against Sam Altman's return that someone made:

If they accept Sam back with an admission he was fired without cause they breached fiduciary duty by firing him in the first place.

If they accept him back without they get sued by the IRS for handing nonprofit to profit-man and bailing.

I am not at all a lawyer but I'm pretty sure Microsoft and others would find a way to sue them if they don't bring him back. And if you're getting sued no matter what, I'd rather have Microsoft on my side personally.

@ersatz The OpenAI board has no fiduciary duty (Edit: no duty to make money or pay back investors). They do have a duty to the mission.

@RyanGreenblatt I think they have both.

@AndrewHebb See the pink box labeled "Important" here: https://openai.com/our-structure

@AndrewHebb Oh, I see:

> Second, because the board is still the board of a Nonprofit, each director must perform their fiduciary duties in furtherance of its mission—safe AGI that is broadly beneficial. While the for-profit subsidiary is permitted to make and distribute profit, it is subject to this mission. The Nonprofit’s principal beneficiary is humanity, not OpenAI investors.

That's not usually what people mean by fiduciary, I thought fiduciary refered to "duty to investors" in this conversation, but I guess it can also mean duty to mission.

@RyanGreenblatt "The OpenAI board has no fiduciary duty" Don't they own OpenAI, the for-profit company? They're just the company's majority shareholder, aren't they? If that's the case, maybe they have a legal duty not to do something that destroys company value, or something like that?

@ersatz The intention of the corporate structure is that they have absolutely no obligation to shareholders (as is articulated in the blog post I linked above). This hasn't been tested in court, though I expect that absolutely no obligation to shareholders would win out. (However, the non-profit can still be sued for not pursuing their mission.)

(I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.)

@RyanGreenblatt No, you're right. I wasn't aware of that pink section.