Written by: Techub News Compilation

Introduction

In November 2023, just a year after the global AI boom sparked by ChatGPT, its parent company OpenAI witnessed a dramatic "five-day coup" comparable to a Silicon Valley power struggle. Company co-founder and CEO Sam Altman was abruptly dismissed by the board, only to dramatically return amidst employee protests and pressure from major investor Microsoft. This event not only concerns the internal turmoil of a star company but also touches on the core issue of the AI era: when a company's product is seen as potentially reshaping or threatening the future of humanity, who has the right to press the "stop button"? This article, based on recently disclosed court testimonies and multiple sources, restores the full picture of this turmoil and interprets the deep power struggles related to AI, security, and commercialization behind it.

Summary

• The OpenAI board suddenly dismissed CEO Sam Altman for "lack of honest communication," triggering internal upheaval and strong dissatisfaction from Microsoft.
• The root of the incident lies in OpenAI's unique structure of a "non-profit board controlling a for-profit subsidiary," designed to ensure the development of AI aligns with the ultimate mission of "benefiting humanity."
• There were fundamental disagreements between board members (especially Chief Scientist Ilya Sutskever) and Altman regarding the speed of AI development, commercialization, and prioritization of safety.
• Collective employee resistance (threatening resignation) and immense pressure from investors such as Microsoft ultimately forced the board to compromise, and Altman regained control of the company four days later.
• This turmoil exposed the irreconcilable tensions among commercial ambition, technological safety, and governance structures on the path to developing powerful AI (AGI).

The Storm Hits: Video Call from Las Vegas

On November 17, 2023, Friday afternoon, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was in a hotel room in Las Vegas to watch an F1 race, a rare break for him. Over the past year, since the release of ChatGPT, which became the fastest-growing consumer application in history, Altman had been traveling globally, meeting world leaders and giving countless interviews. His company was about to complete an employee stock sale plan with an $86 billion valuation, and many compared him to the modern "Oppenheimer"—he himself didn't mind this comparison, once mentioning that he shares a birthday with the "father of the atomic bomb."

However, a video call he thought would be ordinary changed everything. On the other end of the screen were four board members of OpenAI: Adam D'Angelo, founder and CEO of the Q&A website Quora; Helen Toner, an AI policy researcher at Georgetown University's think tank; Tasha McCauley, a robotics entrepreneur; and Ilya Sutskever, the company's co-founder and chief scientist. Sutskever read a prepared statement: the board had lost confidence in Altman's leadership and decided to terminate his position immediately, with a public announcement to follow soon.

Altman was left speechless in shock, feeling as if he was in a nightmare. After the call, he was swiftly locked out of the company's systems, unable to log into his own Gmail. Twenty minutes before, he was the CEO of the world's most renowned AI company; twenty minutes later, he couldn't access his work email. Soon, the OpenAI board released the famous announcement stating Altman's departure was the result of a board review, as he had not been "forthright" in his communications, hindering the board's duties. The company's CTO Mira Murati was appointed as interim CEO.

Internal Quake: From San Francisco to Redmond

The news spread like wildfire, instantly becoming global headlines. Altman's phone was inundated with a surge of text messages, causing the iMessage app to crash. In the OpenAI office in San Francisco, 300 miles away, hundreds of employees stood frozen, repeatedly refreshing news pages, unable to work. They had just learned that the CEO was fired, but no one had informed them of the reason.

Equally caught off-guard were OpenAI's most important investors—Microsoft. Interim CEO Murati informed them only minutes before the announcement. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella was extremely angry about this. Subsequently, Sutskever and Murati held an all-staff meeting, attempting to explain the situation. When asked if there was a specific incident involved, Sutskever replied, "I wish I could provide details, but I cannot." When employees pressed for more information about the future, he said, "Please keep expectations low." Even more concerning was the issue regarding employee stock monetization: just days later, OpenAI was about to finalize a deal allowing employees to sell some shares at an $86 billion valuation, meaning millions of dollars in profits for many, with some having already put down deposits on homes. The company's COO Brad Lightcap fumbled over the issue, stating, "(stock monetization) we... uh, we will see." None of this calmed the employees' anxieties.

That afternoon, Altman tweeted in his trademark all-lowercase style: "I love my time at OpenAI. It's been transformative for me personally, and I hope it has made a little difference in the world. Most importantly, I enjoy working with such talented people." Following this, Greg Brockman, co-founder and president of the company, who was also removed by the board (but allowed to stay as president), retweeted Altman's message and announced his resignation in solidarity. Soon, three senior researchers also announced their departures. Employees felt the world was collapsing around them.

Mission Conflict: Non-Profit Ideals vs. Commercial Realities

Later that Friday evening, the board held a meeting with about 15 top executives at OpenAI. Board members repeatedly refused to answer any detailed questions, citing "confidentiality." The executives were infuriated, warning the board that they must reinstate Altman, or else they would be leading the company toward death. At this point, board member Helen Toner responded, "That’s actually in line with the mission."

At first glance, this seemed insane: a board dismisses an extremely successful CEO and claims it aligns with the company's mission? To understand this, we must return to OpenAI's origins. OpenAI was founded in 2015, not as an ordinary tech company, but as a non-profit research lab. It was established with donations from Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Sam Altman, among others. Ilya Sutskever has been there since day one. The mission of the company is not to make money, but explicitly to "save the world."

These founders believed that within their lifetimes, possibly in the next decade or two, humanity would create machines smarter than themselves—artificial general intelligence (AGI). Such machines would be capable of conducting new scientific research, formulating military strategies, and completing any cognitive tasks that humans can perform. They believed that whoever creates AGI first would possess the most powerful technology on Earth, and this was not a safe enterprise. Altman himself wrote in a personal blog in 2015: "The development of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) may be the biggest threat to humanity's continued existence." They established this lab to safely develop AGI first, to prevent being outpaced by less cautious competitors. They especially distrusted Google DeepMind. Elon Musk once stated that he founded OpenAI "to counterbalance Google... the least Google-like thing is a fully open non-profit organization... We don't want this to become a profit-maximizing hellish demon."

OpenAI's original mission (which can still be found online) was to advance digital intelligence in a way that is most likely to benefit all of humanity, unrestricted by the requirement to generate financial returns. However, problems arose: training cutting-edge AI models requires astronomical funding. Altman admitted in 2019, "I think there is one thing that no one knows, which is exactly how much money you need. It's definitely in the billions, maybe hundreds of billions, hopefully not."

Unique Structure: For-Profit Subsidiaries and Non-Profit "Kill Switch"

Thus, in 2019, Sam Altman proposed a solution that also made him CEO of the company. The core of this solution was a for-profit subsidiary wholly owned and controlled by a non-profit board. This way, the for-profit entity could accept investments, pay competitive salaries (including equity), build data centers, and compete with Google, but it had to be accountable to the non-profit board, which in turn was accountable to the mission.

This structure embedded two "guardrails": Profit Cap and Non-Profit Control. The profit cap for investors was set at 100 times, with any excess flowing back to the non-profit entity for the benefit of humanity (e.g., universal basic income). In simple terms, investors could become wealthy, but not infinitely wealthy. Beyond a certain point, the profits belonged to all of humanity. More importantly, the non-profit board could dismiss the CEO of the for-profit subsidiary. This functioned as an "emergency stop button." The idea is to allow people who care about "not destroying the world" to enter the board while the capitalist machine operates beneath them (the only way to compete), but if this machine starts heading into dangerous territory, those upstairs can pull the plug. Theoretically, this board places humanity above the company. If a conflict arises, humanity should win out. Sam Altman has often discussed this point.

However, in November 2023, this "stop button" was pressed. The board believed that Altman, in pushing the company towards rapid commercialization and seeking massive funding (including raising hundreds of billions from Middle Eastern sovereign funds), may have veered the company off the "safety first" path. Especially, Chief Scientist Ilya Sutskever, one of the staunchest believers in AGI risks, likely viewed Altman's ambitions as a threat to safety. The board's vague assertion of "lack of honest communication" may stem from these fundamental strategic disagreements.

Power Reversal: Employee Uprising and Investor Pressure

The board may have underestimated Altman's support within and outside the company. Over the weekend following Altman's firing, more than 95% of OpenAI employees signed a letter threatening to collectively join Microsoft (which had announced it would welcome Altman and his team) if the board did not resign and reinstate Altman. This was a blatant "mutiny." Meanwhile, major investor Microsoft exerted immense pressure. Without Altman, OpenAI's commercial value and strategic alliances would be under severe threat.

Under the dual pressure of internal resistance and external pressure, the board quickly found itself isolated. Ilya Sutskever, one of the core figures involved in the dismissal, publicly expressed regret, stating, "I never intended to hurt OpenAI." Four days later, on November 21, OpenAI announced that it had reached a principle agreement to reinstate Sam Altman as CEO and form a new initial board. All board members, except Adam D'Angelo, were ousted.

Aftermath and Reflection: Who Controls the Future?

Altman's return was not a simple victory. The new board structure is still being adjusted, trying to maintain commitment to the mission while learning from the lessons. This turmoil exposed the inherent tensions in OpenAI's governance model: when the abstract mission of "saving humanity" collides with the livelihoods of thousands of employees, hundreds of billions in investments, and the realities of a national technological competition, the theoretically superior "non-profit board" appears so fragile.

It raises a sharp question: If a company's technology is seen as capable of influencing or even threatening the future of humanity, who has the legitimate power to control that company? Is it a small board that holds the "kill switch" but may become detached from business realities? Is it the employees who create the core product and vote with their feet? Is it the investors who contribute substantial funds and seek returns? Or is it the public and government, excluded from this series of closed-door negotiations?

OpenAI's "five-day coup" felt like a rehearsal. As AI capabilities evolve at a rapid pace, similar conflicts of power, safety, and commercialization are likely to resurface at more levels and on a larger scale. Sam Altman's dismissal and return is not only one of the most exciting business stories of 2023 but also a profound warning about the ownership of technological power in the coming AI era. In the future, will similar "stop buttons" be pressed again? If pressed, will they still be effective? The answers will determine what kind of future we all will head toward.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。