What does “your” board mean in this context? Who’s “your”?

The CEO just works for the organization and the board is their boss.

You’re referencing a founder situation where the CEO is also a founder who also has equity and thus the board also reports to them.

This isn’t that. Altman didn’t own anything, it’s not his company, it’s a non-profit. He just works there. He got fired.

I believe altman had some ownership, however it is a general lesson of handing over substantial power to laymen who are completely detached from the actual ops & know-how of the company

nobody handed over power. presumably they were appointed to the board to do exactly what they did (if this theory holds), in which cass this outcome would be a feature not a bug

There’s no such thing as owning a non-profit.

> this is why you don't bring NGO types into your board

OpenAI is an NGO…?

That is neither stated nor implied, unless you’re simply making the objection, “But OpenAI _is_ nongovernmental.”

Most readers are aware they were a research and advocacy organization that became (in the sense that public benefit tax-free nonprofit groups and charitable foundations normally have no possibility of granting anyone equity ownership nor exclusive rights to their production) a corporation by creating one; but some of the board members are implied by the parent comment to be from NGO-type backgrounds.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Perhaps you could point out where your perspective differs from mine? So, as I see it: Open AI _is_ a non-profit, though it has an LLC it wholly controls that doesn't have non-profit status. It never "became" for-profit (IANAL, but is that even possible? It seems like that should not be possible), the only thing that happened is that the LLC was allowed to collect some "profit" - but that in turn would go to its owners, primarily the non-profit. As far as I'm aware the board in question that went through this purge _was_ the non-profit's board (does the LLC have a board?)

From the non-profit's perspective, it sounds pretty reasonable to self-police and ensure there aren't any rogue parts of the organization that are going off and working at odds with the overall non-profit's formal aims. It's always been weird that the Open-AI LLC seemed to be so commercially focused even when that might conflict with it's sole controller's interests; notably the LLC very explicitly warned investors that the NGO's mission took precedence over profit.

My objection is that OpenAI, at least to my knowledge, still is a non-profit organization that is not part of the government and has some kind of public benefit goals - that sounds like an NGO to me. Thus appointing “NGO types” to the board sounds reasonable: They have experience running that kind of organization.

Many NGOs run limited liability companies and for-profit businesses as part of their operations, that’s in no way unique for OpenAI. Girl Scout cookies are an example.