4 ms·
This, to me, seems like the most likely root cause: Sam was going too far into the "for profit" world, and lied to the board and misled them about his plans.
by 1024core 3y ago
This, to me, seems like the most likely root cause: Sam was going too far into the "for profit" world, and lied to the board and misled them about his plans.
- Wowfunhappy 3y agoBut would that warrant outright firing him like this? No exit plan where they can give the appearance of leaving on good terms?
- airstrike 3y agoTo make an example out of him?
- Wowfunhappy 3y agoWhy would they want to do that? That doesn't benefit anyone.
- zarzavat 3y agoThey clearly did it in a hurry, this is a “pants on fire” firing, not a difference of opinion over his leadership and direction.
- aaronbrethorst 3y agoI assume you mean ‘hair on fire,’ which suggests a move done in a panic. “Pants on fire” means the subject is lying.
- LegibleCrimson 3y agoThey fired him for lying. I think GP meant what they said, which is that what he was doing was blatantly lying, rather than whatever softer interpretation can be made for "not consistently candid in his communications".
- daveguy 3y agoThat's a good point. The abruptness of the firing and calling him "not candid" aka lied in corporate speak. Means it's probably something with legal jeopardy.
- lukev 3y agoThe statement says. It would mean not just a misalignment on values but active deception regarding OpenAIs current direction. The bit about “ability to fulfill duties” sticks out, considering the responsibility and duties of the nonprofit board… not to shareholders, but, ostensibly, to “humanity.”
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoSeems the most plausible and frankly ideal