10 ms·

> (essentially accusing Altman of lying), the thing is there is (legally) a huge gap between lying and "not being candid" in the later case you can have a lot

> (essentially accusing Altman of lying), the thing is there is (legally) a huge gap between lying and "not being candid" in the later case you can have a lot of subtle manipulative formulations, phrasing misleading emphasizing and de-emphasizing of parts misleading representation of what certain decisions imply, intentional not correcting when you notice that someone did misunderstand something and it will lead to them supporting decisions of you they would normally not have supported etc. all of this are legal actions (and in-actions; at least if subtle done) which still can get you fired for "breakdown of communication and/or trust" in pretty much any job, especially a position like CEO outright lying on the other hand likely can entail a lot of legal trouble in many ways so them saying that he "wasn't candid and there was a break down in communication" then it likely means that and a break down in trust but not outright lying (except if they want to downplay the situation, but why should they)

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
This "legal nitpicking" is pretty much irrelevant, even in a court of law: 1. The OpenAI board certainly gave the impression that something egregious had occurred (just look at all the speculation on HN and elsewhere). I have literally never seen a separation announcement that was that pointed where there wasn't significant malfeasance. In the US, basically anyone can sue anyone else for anything. It would be quite easy to argue in court that the board gave the impression to a reasonable observer that Altman lied over something important - Kara Swisher tweeted that basically the board is screwed unless they have an extremely unambiguous smoking gun. 2. On a practical level, the legalese really doesn't matter. Then general SV opinion already seems to be that the board did Altman and Brockman dirty, it's already been reported that Altman is starting a new company, and I have no doubt heaps and heaps of OpenAI employees will jump ship to this new venture, as many high level employees have already announced their departure.
- dathinab 3y ago
  yes the legalese doesn't matter but there is still a huge different between something which is done subtle enough to not realistically be able to be pinned down by any court but entails a fundamental break of trust (which is egregious) and what legally could count ad fraudulent actions and similar (and is eregious and can additional lead to legal cases being brought against you)
- dathinab 3y ago
  > Then general SV opinion through AFIK the general opinion I have heard outside of SV by people working with AI is that Altman is the one who had been acting "dishonest, manipulative" in a way which endangers open ai (not OpenAI but AI which is open) in recent times and lets be honest SV isn't really known for caring about morals and bad consequences their tech can have, but the non-profit which made the decision has roughly committed to upholding such standards > that basically the board is screwed unless I highly doubt this, probably his comments (some of which where very misleading and manipulative i.e. not candid at all AFIK) in front of congress in context with the goals of the (non profit parent of) OpenAI which fired him has committed to would be enough reason to fire him. If we used similar manipulative speech also in board meetings this would be a pretty clear open and shut case in favor of the board which also would thoroughly destroy his reputation (iff that is the case and it's brought in front of court) so from an outsider perspective this would be a very interesting case.
  - adastra22 3y ago
    Ilya, who deposed Sam, is very much not in the open AI camp. His beef is that Sam is going too fast and making product available to the masses too soon.
- fourside 3y ago
  > Kara Swisher tweeted that basically the board is screwed unless they have an extremely unambiguous smoking gun. Can you please add a link to that post? It’s been so frustrating trying to follow this story on Twitter. Kara’s feed has a single pinned post with no indication from the UI about where the rest of her posts are.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

This "legal nitpicking" is pretty much irrelevant, even in a court of law: 1. The OpenAI board certainly gave the impression that something egregious had occurred (just look at all the speculation on HN and elsewhere). I have literally never seen a separation announcement that was that pointed where there wasn't significant malfeasance. In the US, basically anyone can sue anyone else for anything. It would be quite easy to argue in court that the board gave the impression to a reasonable observer that Altman lied over something important - Kara Swisher tweeted that basically the board is screwed unless they have an extremely unambiguous smoking gun. 2. On a practical level, the legalese really doesn't matter. Then general SV opinion already seems to be that the board did Altman and Brockman dirty, it's already been reported that Altman is starting a new company, and I have no doubt heaps and heaps of OpenAI employees will jump ship to this new venture, as many high level employees have already announced their departure.

dathinab 3y ago
yes the legalese doesn't matter but there is still a huge different between something which is done subtle enough to not realistically be able to be pinned down by any court but entails a fundamental break of trust (which is egregious) and what legally could count ad fraudulent actions and similar (and is eregious and can additional lead to legal cases being brought against you)
dathinab 3y ago
> Then general SV opinion through AFIK the general opinion I have heard outside of SV by people working with AI is that Altman is the one who had been acting "dishonest, manipulative" in a way which endangers open ai (not OpenAI but AI which is open) in recent times and lets be honest SV isn't really known for caring about morals and bad consequences their tech can have, but the non-profit which made the decision has roughly committed to upholding such standards > that basically the board is screwed unless I highly doubt this, probably his comments (some of which where very misleading and manipulative i.e. not candid at all AFIK) in front of congress in context with the goals of the (non profit parent of) OpenAI which fired him has committed to would be enough reason to fire him. If we used similar manipulative speech also in board meetings this would be a pretty clear open and shut case in favor of the board which also would thoroughly destroy his reputation (iff that is the case and it's brought in front of court) so from an outsider perspective this would be a very interesting case.
- adastra22 3y ago
  Ilya, who deposed Sam, is very much not in the open AI camp. His beef is that Sam is going too fast and making product available to the masses too soon.
fourside 3y ago
> Kara Swisher tweeted that basically the board is screwed unless they have an extremely unambiguous smoking gun. Can you please add a link to that post? It’s been so frustrating trying to follow this story on Twitter. Kara’s feed has a single pinned post with no indication from the UI about where the rest of her posts are.