Just a moment...
www.axios.com
    • @kautau@lemmy.worldEnglish
      29•8 months ago

      I mean that’s what they all want. They want (still very well paid) puppet figureheads as leaders while AI make literally every decision based on improving short term profits. If the AI fucks it up they can blame it on the CEO and oust him while they tune the model and put a new one in place. We’re inching ever closer to Neuromancer

    • @subtext@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23•8 months ago

      Fortune reported that they only own 49%, and if that’s the case it would make sense why they might not have known about this, since I don’t think that would be a controlling stake (though I don’t really know the exact definition of the term).

      • @TheBSGamer@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5•8 months ago

        I was curious myself, so I asked ChatGPT (3.5 Turbo) LMAO. I genuinely have no idea myself so I was just curious.

        Me:

        If a company owns a certain percentage in shares in a publicly traded company, is there a percentage where that owning company/individual has more ownership than the company itself? For example, if Company A has 100 shares and Company B owns 51 of those shares and Company A has 49 of those shares, doesn’t that mean Company B owns Company A?

        ChatGPT:

        In a typical scenario, the ownership of a company is determined by the percentage of outstanding shares owned by an individual or another company. However, owning a majority of shares does not necessarily mean that one company “owns” another in the sense of controlling its operations or decision-making.

        In your example, if Company B owns 51 out of 100 shares of Company A, it means that Company B has a majority stake in Company A. Having a majority stake often gives a shareholder significant influence because they have the power to make certain decisions, such as electing the board of directors. Shareholders with a majority stake can potentially control corporate decisions put to a vote.

        However, there are certain decisions that may require a higher percentage of approval, such as amending the company’s bylaws. Additionally, even if Company B has a majority of shares, it does not necessarily mean it has full control over Company A if other shareholders band together to oppose its proposals.

        The idea of “ownership” in this context is more about control and influence rather than a direct operational ownership. It’s also important to note that ownership and control structures can vary based on the type of shares (voting vs. non-voting) and the specific corporate governance rules in place.

        Me:

        So in a hypothetical example of Company B owning 49 shares and Company A owning 51 shares of Company A, Company B is not necessarily beholden to the decisions that Company A wants to make? For example, if Company A’s board of directors decides to lay off it’s CEO, Company B doesn’t necessarily have to be notified that it happened, they can just do it, correct?

        ChatGPT:

        Yes, that’s correct. In the scenario where Company A owns 51 shares and Company B owns 49 shares of Company A, Company A would have the majority stake and, therefore, more influence in making decisions. The board of directors and major corporate decisions, such as hiring or firing the CEO, would typically be within the purview of Company A.

        Company B, holding a minority stake, would have less influence on decision-making. Depending on the corporate governance structure and voting rights associated with the shares, Company B might not have the ability to block certain decisions or dictate major corporate actions. In many cases, minority shareholders have limited control over the day-to-day operations and strategic decisions of a company…(continued rambling)

        • TJA!English
          14•8 months ago

          Your starting point is wrong. Microsoft owns 49% of OpenAI, but the rest is owned by the OpenAI nonprofit, which is a different entity. So it’s more A owns 49% in B. And C owns 51% in B.

          This is the real structure

          • @CerealKiller01@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3•8 months ago

            There’s a bit of confusion between owning a company and owning the shares. A company can buy shares of itself, but that does not grant it control of itself. Let’s say Cute Puppies inc. has 200 shares (so 200 shares = 100% ownership). You and I have 50 shares each, and the rest is distributed among many other holders (we’ll call them “the public”). So, we each own 25% of the company and the public collectively owns 50%. Now Cute Puppies inc. bought all shares held by the public, so it has 100 shares and we each have 50 shares. But a company can’t control itself by definition (it still has the shares and can sell them, but it can’t use those shares to vote, appoint directors etc.), so now we each own 50% of the company.

  • @hershEnglish
    33•8 months ago

    Nothing the linked blog post suggests Microsoft was “blindsided”. Where did the Axios article get that “one minute” bit from?

    • GhostalmediaEnglish
      26•8 months ago

      Really?

      Microsoft, which has invested billions in OpenAI, learned that OpenAI was ousting CEO Sam Altman just a minute before the news was shared with the world

      • @hershEnglish
        16•8 months ago

        You replied as I was editing my previous comment.

        They don’t support that statement in any way. It’s not even attributed to anyone at MS. Where did it come from?

          • @CTDummy@lemm.eeEnglish
            -17•8 months ago

            I’m familiar with the situation, was it me that said it? Because if so I would like it retracted. That attribution may as well be “according to my friend’s dad, who works at Microsoft”.