A measured concern permeates the global AI community as a speculative debate ensues regarding potential quid pro quo favor trading between OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. These alleged activities, traced back to 2019, have prompted thoughtful discussions within the community, raising considerations about a potential breach of fiduciary duties to their respective companies.
Members within the AI community, committed to upholding principles of trust, transparency, neutrality, and unbiased examination, underscore the importance of initiating a comprehensive investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to meticulously assess the validity of these claims. And an anonymous person has already filed an SEC whistleblower complaint about the behavioral pattern of Altman and Nadella, which has SEC Submission Number 17006-030-065-098.
Background:
The controversy stems from a contentious $1 billion investment from Microsoft in 2019, accepted by Altman. This move faced internal criticism from within OpenAI, particularly from then VP of Research Dario Amodei, who saw it as compromising the organization’s mission by exposing it to undue influence from a large corporation. Amodei’s concerns led to his resignation in 2020 and the subsequent founding of a competitor, Anthropic, intensifying the competitive landscape for OpenAI’s flagship product, ChatGPT.
Pattern of Unfavorable Deals:
Stratechery writer Ben Thompson has outlined a pattern of unfavorable deals between Altman and Microsoft, citing the 2019 investment as the genesis of this trend. Thompson states:
“This is, quite obviously, a phenomenal outcome for Microsoft. The company already has a perpetual license to all OpenAI IP (short of artificial general intelligence), including source code and model weights; the question was whether it would have the talent to exploit that IP if OpenAI suffered the sort of talent drain that was threatened upon Altman and Brockman’s removal. Indeed they will, as a good portion of that talent seems likely to flow to Microsoft; you can make the case that Microsoft just acquired OpenAI for $0 and zero risk of an antitrust lawsuit.”
Swift Job Offer and Personal Allegations:
Amidst these developments, Nadella’s unexpected job offer to Altman, just two days after Altman’s mysterious dismissal from OpenAI, on X, with over 40m views, has fueled speculation on The rapidity of the offer, without a traditional interview process, is noteworthy, especially in the context of personal allegations surrounding Altman’s life.
Accusations of Altman potentially molesting his sister, Annie Altman, during their childhood have surfaced, adding complexity to the unfolding narrative. These allegations, as reported by The Mary Sue, underscore the broader need to balance technological advancements with ethical considerations.
AI Community Response and SEC Whistleblower Complaints:
The culmination of these allegations is reflected in a Hacker News forum thread from Nov 22nd, inviting members of the public to file SEC Whistleblower Complaints regarding Altman and Nadella’s potential favor-trading behavior. The thread emphasizes that Altman’s actions since 2019 may constitute a breach of fiduciary duty to OpenAI, directly contributing to the existence of its competitor, Anthropic.
Potential Violations of HR Policy:
The claims found in forums regarding a possible breach of fiduciary duty by Nadella do not hinge on the abuse allegations having occurred. Instead, they rest on the perception that Altman’s hiring without a standard pre-employment screening process may constitute a reputational risk to Microsoft. Hiring Altman without screening, despite knowledge of the reputational risk, could potentially amount to a breach of Nadella’s duty to manage risks for his own company, potentially as a favor to a colleague during a challenging time.
The assertion that Nadella violated Microsoft’s HR policy is a point of concern. As highlighted on Microsoft’s Compliance and Assurance Human Resources webpage, publicly traded companies are expected to uphold and communicate their policies accurately, as these policies are considered a form of communication to investors. Deviating from publicly published policies could be viewed as making false statements to investors. Such actions, if proven, might be considered a clear and simple violation of public statements for a publicly traded company, raising questions about governance and corporate integrity.
The Community’s Ideal Outcome:
The gravity of these allegations demands a meticulous investigation by the SEC. The potential ramifications for OpenAI and the broader tech industry underscore the necessity of addressing concerns surrounding favor trading and potential breaches of fiduciary duty. Only a thorough examination of the facts can ascertain the validity of these claims and provide clarity to a skeptical community seeking transparency and accountability in the tech sector.
