4 ms·

How so? It's just another firing and being escorted out the door.

jdminhbg 3y ago
It's not "just another firing," the statement accused Altman of lying to the board. Either he did and it's a justified extraordinary firing, or he didn't and it's hugely unprofessional to insinuate he did.
- chasd00 3y ago
  Oh man the lawyers have to be so happy I bet they can hardly count.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  I read that word as not being forthcoming moreso than actively lying. But I don't read many firing press releases.
- adastra22 3y ago
  Hugely unprofessional and a billion dollar liability.
janejeon 3y ago
The wording is very clearly hostile and aggressive, especially for a formal statement, and the wording, again, makes it very clear that they are burning all bridges with Sam Altman, and it is very clear that 1. it was done extremely suddenly, 2. with very little notice or discussion with any other stakeholder (e.g. Microsoft being completely blindsided, not even waiting 30 minutes for the stock market to close, doing this shortly before Thanksgiving break, etc). You don't really see any of this in most professional settings.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  boards give reasons for transparency, and they said he had not been fully candid. You are interpreting that as hostile and aggressive because you are reading into it what other boards have said in other disputes and whatever you are imagining, but if the board learned some things not from Altman that it felt they should have learned from Altman, less than candid is a completely neutral way to describe it, and voting him out is not an indication of hostility. Would you like to propose some other candid wording the board could have chosen, a wording that does not lack candor?
  - janejeon 3y ago
    > You are interpreting that as hostile and aggressive because you are reading into it Uhh no, I'm seeing it as hostile and aggressive because the actual verbiage was hostile and aggressive, doubly so in the context of this being a formal corporate statement. You can pass the text into NLP sentiment analyzer and it too will come to the same conclusion. It is also very telling that you are being very sarcastic and demeaning in your remarks as well to someone who wasn't even replying to you, which might explain why you might have seen the PR statement differently.
    - racketcon2089 3y ago
      When you look at the written word and find yourself consistently imputing clear intent which is hostile, aggressive, sarcastic, and demeaning which no one else but you sees, a thoughtful person would begin to introspect.
      - janejeon 3y ago
        Again, I'm not sure why you and the other person are just out for blood and keep trying to make it personal, but you can clearly feed it into NLP/ChatGPT and co and even the machines will tell you the actual wordings are aggressive.
        jstarfish 3y ago
        I'll bite. I even led the witness on this one by outright asking if it's aggressive. > "a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities." > The provided text is not explicitly aggressive; however, it conveys a critical tone regarding the individual's communication, emphasizing hindrance to the board's responsibilities. Did you actually run this through GPT...or did you poll Reddit?
        CamperBob2 3y ago
- clnq 3y ago
  It is quite gauche for a company to burn bridges with their upper management. This bodes poorly for ever hoping to attract executives in the future. Even Bobby Kotick got a more graceful farewell from Activision Blizzard, where they tried to clear his name. It is only prudent business. Certainly, this is very immature. It wouldn't be out of context in HBO's Succession. Whether what happened is right or just in some sense is a different conversation. We could speculate on what is going on in the company and why, but the tactlessness is evident.
  - ribosometronome 3y ago
    > Whether it's right or just in some sense is a different conversation. The same conversation if it's "mature", surely? I'm failing to see how one thinks turning a blind eye to like, decades of sexual impropriety and major internal culture issues to the point the state takes action against your company is "mature". Like, under what definition?
    - clnq 3y ago
      Mature, as in the opposite of ingenuous. It does no good to harm a company further. Kotick did enough damage, he left, all that needed to be said about him was said, tirelessly. Every effort to get him to offer some reparations - expended. So what was there to gain from the company speaking ill of their past employee? What was even left to say? Nothing. No one wants to work in an organization that vilifies its own people. It was prudent. I will emphasize again that the morality of these situations is a separate matter from tact. It is very well possible that doing what is good for business does not always align with what is moral. But does this come as a surprise to anyone? We can recognize that the situation is not one dimensional and not reduce it to such. The same applies to the press release from Open AI - it is graceless, that much can be observed. But we do not yet know whether it is reprehensible, exemplary, or somewhere in between in the sense of morality and justice. It will come out, in other channels rather than official press releases, like in Bobby's case.
      - watwut 3y ago
        > Mature, as in the opposite of ingenuous To tell it in an exaggerated way, maturity should not imply sociopathy or completely disregard for everything. Obviously I am referring here to Kottick situation. But, the definition where it is immature to tell the truth and mature to enable powerful bad players is wrong definition of maturity.
- DonHopkins 3y ago
  >The wording is very clearly hostile and aggressive At least we can be sure that ChatGPT didn't write the statement, then. Otherwise the last paragraph would have equivocated that both sides have a point.

It's not "just another firing," the statement accused Altman of lying to the board. Either he did and it's a justified extraordinary firing, or he didn't and it's hugely unprofessional to insinuate he did.

chasd00 3y ago
Oh man the lawyers have to be so happy I bet they can hardly count.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
I read that word as not being forthcoming moreso than actively lying. But I don't read many firing press releases.
adastra22 3y ago
Hugely unprofessional and a billion dollar liability.

janejeon 3y ago

The wording is very clearly hostile and aggressive, especially for a formal statement, and the wording, again, makes it very clear that they are burning all bridges with Sam Altman, and it is very clear that 1. it was done extremely suddenly, 2. with very little notice or discussion with any other stakeholder (e.g. Microsoft being completely blindsided, not even waiting 30 minutes for the stock market to close, doing this shortly before Thanksgiving break, etc). You don't really see any of this in most professional settings.

fsckboy 3y ago
boards give reasons for transparency, and they said he had not been fully candid. You are interpreting that as hostile and aggressive because you are reading into it what other boards have said in other disputes and whatever you are imagining, but if the board learned some things not from Altman that it felt they should have learned from Altman, less than candid is a completely neutral way to describe it, and voting him out is not an indication of hostility. Would you like to propose some other candid wording the board could have chosen, a wording that does not lack candor?
- janejeon 3y ago
  > You are interpreting that as hostile and aggressive because you are reading into it Uhh no, I'm seeing it as hostile and aggressive because the actual verbiage was hostile and aggressive, doubly so in the context of this being a formal corporate statement. You can pass the text into NLP sentiment analyzer and it too will come to the same conclusion. It is also very telling that you are being very sarcastic and demeaning in your remarks as well to someone who wasn't even replying to you, which might explain why you might have seen the PR statement differently.
  - racketcon2089 3y ago
    When you look at the written word and find yourself consistently imputing clear intent which is hostile, aggressive, sarcastic, and demeaning which no one else but you sees, a thoughtful person would begin to introspect.
    - janejeon 3y ago
      Again, I'm not sure why you and the other person are just out for blood and keep trying to make it personal, but you can clearly feed it into NLP/ChatGPT and co and even the machines will tell you the actual wordings are aggressive.
      - jstarfish 3y ago
        I'll bite. I even led the witness on this one by outright asking if it's aggressive. > "a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities." > The provided text is not explicitly aggressive; however, it conveys a critical tone regarding the individual's communication, emphasizing hindrance to the board's responsibilities. Did you actually run this through GPT...or did you poll Reddit?
        CamperBob2 3y ago
clnq 3y ago
It is quite gauche for a company to burn bridges with their upper management. This bodes poorly for ever hoping to attract executives in the future. Even Bobby Kotick got a more graceful farewell from Activision Blizzard, where they tried to clear his name. It is only prudent business. Certainly, this is very immature. It wouldn't be out of context in HBO's Succession. Whether what happened is right or just in some sense is a different conversation. We could speculate on what is going on in the company and why, but the tactlessness is evident.
- ribosometronome 3y ago
  > Whether it's right or just in some sense is a different conversation. The same conversation if it's "mature", surely? I'm failing to see how one thinks turning a blind eye to like, decades of sexual impropriety and major internal culture issues to the point the state takes action against your company is "mature". Like, under what definition?
  - clnq 3y ago
    Mature, as in the opposite of ingenuous. It does no good to harm a company further. Kotick did enough damage, he left, all that needed to be said about him was said, tirelessly. Every effort to get him to offer some reparations - expended. So what was there to gain from the company speaking ill of their past employee? What was even left to say? Nothing. No one wants to work in an organization that vilifies its own people. It was prudent. I will emphasize again that the morality of these situations is a separate matter from tact. It is very well possible that doing what is good for business does not always align with what is moral. But does this come as a surprise to anyone? We can recognize that the situation is not one dimensional and not reduce it to such. The same applies to the press release from Open AI - it is graceless, that much can be observed. But we do not yet know whether it is reprehensible, exemplary, or somewhere in between in the sense of morality and justice. It will come out, in other channels rather than official press releases, like in Bobby's case.
    - watwut 3y ago
      > Mature, as in the opposite of ingenuous To tell it in an exaggerated way, maturity should not imply sociopathy or completely disregard for everything. Obviously I am referring here to Kottick situation. But, the definition where it is immature to tell the truth and mature to enable powerful bad players is wrong definition of maturity.
DonHopkins 3y ago
>The wording is very clearly hostile and aggressive At least we can be sure that ChatGPT didn't write the statement, then. Otherwise the last paragraph would have equivocated that both sides have a point.