6 ms·

I’m not saying there is lack of truth. I’m saying that’s not the real reason. It could be there’s a scandal to be found, but my guess is the hostility from Open

I’m not saying there is lack of truth. I’m saying that’s not the real reason. It could be there’s a scandal to be found, but my guess is the hostility from OpenAI is just preemptive. There’s really no nice way to tell someone to fuck off from the biggest thing. Ever.

lenerdenator 3y ago
I mean I'm not a lawyer (of the big city or simple country varieties, or any other variety) but if you talk to most HR people they'll tell you that if they ever get a phone call from a prospective employer to confirm details about someone having worked there previously, the three things they'll typically say are: 1) a confirmation of the dates of employment 2) a confirmation of the role/title during employment 3) whether or not they would rehire that person ... and that's it. The last one is a legally-sound way of saying that their time at the company left something to be desired, up to and including the point of them being terminated. It doesn't give them exposure under defamation because it's completely true, as the company is fully in-charge of that decision and can thus set the reality surrounding it. That's for a regular employee who is having their information confirmed by some hiring manager in a phone or email conversation. This is a press release for a company connected to several very high-profile corporations in a very well-connected business community. Arguably it's the biggest tech exec news of the year. If there's ulterior or additional motive as you suggest, there's a possibility Sam goes and hires the biggest son-of-a-bitch attorney in California to convince a jury that the ulterior or additional motive was _the only_ motive, and that calling Sam a liar in a press release was defamation. As a result, OpenAI/the foundation, would probably be paying him _at least_ several million dollars (probably a lot more) for making him hard to hire on at other companies. Either he simply lied to the board and that's it, or OpenAI's counsel didn't do their job and put their foot down over the language used in the press release.
- wavemode 3y ago
  Someone at OpenAI hates the man's guts. It's that simple. Even with very public cases of company leaders who did horrible things (much worse than lying), the companies that fired them said nothing officially. The person just "resigned". There's just no reason open up even the faintest possibility of an expensive lawsuit, even if they believe they can win. So yeah, someone definitely told the lawyers to go fuck themselves when they decided to go with this inflammatory language.
  - lenerdenator 3y ago
    Well, for their sake, I hope they either issue a retraction soon, have good lawyers and documentation of their decision, or Sam turns out to be a forgiving person. I wouldn't put money on the last one, though.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    I don't know that this is always the case. For example, when BK was forced to resign from Intel, the board's announcement was quite specific on why.
  - staticman2 3y ago
    You can't say a person resigned if they refused to resign, correct? If the person says they refuse to resign you have to fire them. So that's one scenario where they would have to say they fired him. You also wouldn't try to avoid a lawsuit if you believed (hypothetically) it was impossible to avoid a lawsuit.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - adastra22 3y ago
    > So yeah, someone definitely told the lawyers to go fuck themselves when they decided to go with this inflammatory language. You're assuming they even consulted the lawyers...
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  There is no legal justification for ever saying those dates, much less their department and role. I have never heard of any HR department saying anything of the sort, even if this is an oft-quoted meme of HR. I suspect you have actually never worked in HR to provide such statements, you are merely speculating.
  - lenerdenator 3y ago
    This was an answer given to me by a VP of HR last month.
anigbrowl 3y ago
John, I don't think you understand how corporate law departments work. It's not like a romantic or friend breakup where someone says a mean remark about the other to underline that it's over; there's a big legal risk to the corporate entity from carelessly damaging someone's reputation like that, so it's smarter to just keep the personality/vision disagreements private and limit public statements to platitudes.
- johnwheeler 3y ago
  Please don’t patronize me. It indeed looks like the press release from OpenAI is under scrutiny. What you fail to understand is human nature and the way people really do things ^TM https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725685211436814795 https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725685211436814795
  - majormajor 3y ago
    One imagines "human nature" cuts both ways here - sometimes damage control is just damage control.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    I'm not patronizing you, I'm just responding on the same level as the post I replied to. There's an endless supply of examples of corporate/legal decisions and communication being made on very different criteria from interpersonal interactions. Of course the press release is under scrutiny, we are all wondering What Really Happened. But careless statements create significant legal (and thus financial) risk for a big corporate entity, and board members have fiduciary responsibilities, which is why 99.99% of corporate communications are bland in tone, whatever human drama may be taking place in conference rooms.
    - Jerrrry 3y ago
      >John >I'm not patronizing you (A)ssuming (G)ood (F)aith, referring to someone online by their name, even in an edge case where their username is their name, is considered patronizing as it is difficult to convey a tone via text medium that isn't perceived as a mockery/veiled threat. This may be a US-internet thing; analogous to getting within striking distance with a raised voice can be a capital offense in the US, juxtaposed to being completely normal in some parts of the Middle East.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

lenerdenator 3y ago

I mean I'm not a lawyer (of the big city or simple country varieties, or any other variety) but if you talk to most HR people they'll tell you that if they ever get a phone call from a prospective employer to confirm details about someone having worked there previously, the three things they'll typically say are: 1) a confirmation of the dates of employment 2) a confirmation of the role/title during employment 3) whether or not they would rehire that person ... and that's it. The last one is a legally-sound way of saying that their time at the company left something to be desired, up to and including the point of them being terminated. It doesn't give them exposure under defamation because it's completely true, as the company is fully in-charge of that decision and can thus set the reality surrounding it. That's for a regular employee who is having their information confirmed by some hiring manager in a phone or email conversation. This is a press release for a company connected to several very high-profile corporations in a very well-connected business community. Arguably it's the biggest tech exec news of the year. If there's ulterior or additional motive as you suggest, there's a possibility Sam goes and hires the biggest son-of-a-bitch attorney in California to convince a jury that the ulterior or additional motive was _the only_ motive, and that calling Sam a liar in a press release was defamation. As a result, OpenAI/the foundation, would probably be paying him _at least_ several million dollars (probably a lot more) for making him hard to hire on at other companies. Either he simply lied to the board and that's it, or OpenAI's counsel didn't do their job and put their foot down over the language used in the press release.

wavemode 3y ago
Someone at OpenAI hates the man's guts. It's that simple. Even with very public cases of company leaders who did horrible things (much worse than lying), the companies that fired them said nothing officially. The person just "resigned". There's just no reason open up even the faintest possibility of an expensive lawsuit, even if they believe they can win. So yeah, someone definitely told the lawyers to go fuck themselves when they decided to go with this inflammatory language.
- lenerdenator 3y ago
  Well, for their sake, I hope they either issue a retraction soon, have good lawyers and documentation of their decision, or Sam turns out to be a forgiving person. I wouldn't put money on the last one, though.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  I don't know that this is always the case. For example, when BK was forced to resign from Intel, the board's announcement was quite specific on why.
- staticman2 3y ago
  You can't say a person resigned if they refused to resign, correct? If the person says they refuse to resign you have to fire them. So that's one scenario where they would have to say they fired him. You also wouldn't try to avoid a lawsuit if you believed (hypothetically) it was impossible to avoid a lawsuit.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- adastra22 3y ago
  > So yeah, someone definitely told the lawyers to go fuck themselves when they decided to go with this inflammatory language. You're assuming they even consulted the lawyers...
satvikpendem 3y ago
There is no legal justification for ever saying those dates, much less their department and role. I have never heard of any HR department saying anything of the sort, even if this is an oft-quoted meme of HR. I suspect you have actually never worked in HR to provide such statements, you are merely speculating.
- lenerdenator 3y ago
  This was an answer given to me by a VP of HR last month.

anigbrowl 3y ago

John, I don't think you understand how corporate law departments work. It's not like a romantic or friend breakup where someone says a mean remark about the other to underline that it's over; there's a big legal risk to the corporate entity from carelessly damaging someone's reputation like that, so it's smarter to just keep the personality/vision disagreements private and limit public statements to platitudes.

johnwheeler 3y ago
Please don’t patronize me. It indeed looks like the press release from OpenAI is under scrutiny. What you fail to understand is human nature and the way people really do things ^TM https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725685211436814795 https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725685211436814795
- majormajor 3y ago
  One imagines "human nature" cuts both ways here - sometimes damage control is just damage control.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  I'm not patronizing you, I'm just responding on the same level as the post I replied to. There's an endless supply of examples of corporate/legal decisions and communication being made on very different criteria from interpersonal interactions. Of course the press release is under scrutiny, we are all wondering What Really Happened. But careless statements create significant legal (and thus financial) risk for a big corporate entity, and board members have fiduciary responsibilities, which is why 99.99% of corporate communications are bland in tone, whatever human drama may be taking place in conference rooms.
  - Jerrrry 3y ago
    >John >I'm not patronizing you (A)ssuming (G)ood (F)aith, referring to someone online by their name, even in an edge case where their username is their name, is considered patronizing as it is difficult to convey a tone via text medium that isn't perceived as a mockery/veiled threat. This may be a US-internet thing; analogous to getting within striking distance with a raised voice can be a capital offense in the US, juxtaposed to being completely normal in some parts of the Middle East.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]