5 ms·

Investors are not gonna like when the business guy who was pushing for productizing, profitability and growth get ousted. We don’t know all the details about wh

Investors are not gonna like when the business guy who was pushing for productizing, profitability and growth get ousted. We don’t know all the details about what exactly caused the board to fire Sam. The part about lying to the board is notable. It’s possible Sam betrayed their trust and actually committed a fireable offense. But even if the rest of the board was right, the way they’ve handled it so far doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Again, they didn't state that he lied. They stated that he wasn't candid. A lot of people here have been reading specifics into a generalized term. It is even possible to not be candid without even using lies of omission. For a CEO this could be as simple as just moving fast and not taking the time to report on major initiatives to the board.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > Again, they didn't state that he lied. They stated that he wasn't candid. A lot of people here have been reading specifics into a generalized term. OED: candour - the quality of being open and honest in expression. "They didn't state he lied ... without even using lies of omission ... they said he wasn't [word defined as honest and open]" Candour encapsulates exactly those things. Being open (i.e. not omitting things and disclosing all you know) and honest (being truthful). On the contrary, "not consistently candid", while you call it a "generalized term", is actually a quite specific term that was expressly chosen, and says, "we have had multiple instances where he has not been open with us, or not been honest with us, or both".
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Yes? I agree, and don't see how what you've written either extends or contradicts what I wrote.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      To not be candid means to not be open (i.e. keeping things back, 'omission') or to not be honest (i.e. lie). If he didn't lie, and didn't lie by omission then he was by definition being candid. Give us an example then, of how you can be "not candid" while being honest and open.
  - cma 3y ago
    If "and" operates as logical "and," then being "honest and not open," "not honest and open," and "not honest and not open" would all be possibilities, one of which would still be "honest" but potentially lying through omission.
- notahacker 3y ago
  Its possible not to be candid without even using lies of omission (and be on the losing side of a vicious factional battle) and get a nice note thanking you for all that you've done and allowing you to step down and spend more time with your family at the end of the year too. Or to carry on as before but with onerous reporting requirements. The board dumped him with unusual haste and an almost unprecedented attack on his integrity instead. A lot of people are reading the room rather than hyperliterally focusing on the exact words used. If I take the time to accuse my boss of failing to be candid instead of thanking him in my resignation letter or exit interview, I'm not saying I think he could have communicated better, I'm saying he's a damned liar, and my letter isn't sent for the public to speculate on. Whether the board were justified in concluding Sam was untrustworthy is another question, but they've been willing to burn quite a lot of reputation on signalling that.
  - pdntspa 3y ago
    > hyperliterally focusing on the exact words used. Business communication is never, ever forthright. These people cannot be blunt to the public even if their life depended on it. Reading between the lines is practically a requirement.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  They said he lied without using those exact words. Standard procedure and corp-speak.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  How much you wanna bet that the board wasn't told about OpenAI's Dev Days presentation until after it happened?

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

Again, they didn't state that he lied. They stated that he wasn't candid. A lot of people here have been reading specifics into a generalized term. It is even possible to not be candid without even using lies of omission. For a CEO this could be as simple as just moving fast and not taking the time to report on major initiatives to the board.

FireBeyond 3y ago
> Again, they didn't state that he lied. They stated that he wasn't candid. A lot of people here have been reading specifics into a generalized term. OED: candour - the quality of being open and honest in expression. "They didn't state he lied ... without even using lies of omission ... they said he wasn't [word defined as honest and open]" Candour encapsulates exactly those things. Being open (i.e. not omitting things and disclosing all you know) and honest (being truthful). On the contrary, "not consistently candid", while you call it a "generalized term", is actually a quite specific term that was expressly chosen, and says, "we have had multiple instances where he has not been open with us, or not been honest with us, or both".
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Yes? I agree, and don't see how what you've written either extends or contradicts what I wrote.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    To not be candid means to not be open (i.e. keeping things back, 'omission') or to not be honest (i.e. lie). If he didn't lie, and didn't lie by omission then he was by definition being candid. Give us an example then, of how you can be "not candid" while being honest and open.
- cma 3y ago
  If "and" operates as logical "and," then being "honest and not open," "not honest and open," and "not honest and not open" would all be possibilities, one of which would still be "honest" but potentially lying through omission.
notahacker 3y ago
Its possible not to be candid without even using lies of omission (and be on the losing side of a vicious factional battle) and get a nice note thanking you for all that you've done and allowing you to step down and spend more time with your family at the end of the year too. Or to carry on as before but with onerous reporting requirements. The board dumped him with unusual haste and an almost unprecedented attack on his integrity instead. A lot of people are reading the room rather than hyperliterally focusing on the exact words used. If I take the time to accuse my boss of failing to be candid instead of thanking him in my resignation letter or exit interview, I'm not saying I think he could have communicated better, I'm saying he's a damned liar, and my letter isn't sent for the public to speculate on. Whether the board were justified in concluding Sam was untrustworthy is another question, but they've been willing to burn quite a lot of reputation on signalling that.
- pdntspa 3y ago
  > hyperliterally focusing on the exact words used. Business communication is never, ever forthright. These people cannot be blunt to the public even if their life depended on it. Reading between the lines is practically a requirement.
jacquesm 3y ago
They said he lied without using those exact words. Standard procedure and corp-speak.
kmeisthax 3y ago
How much you wanna bet that the board wasn't told about OpenAI's Dev Days presentation until after it happened?