6 ms·

That's pretty unsurprising for him to demand that, since the statement they put out really threw him under the bus. I would've thought that if he'd done somethi

That's pretty unsurprising for him to demand that, since the statement they put out really threw him under the bus. I would've thought that if he'd done something actually bad they would've come out and said it already, so as to prevent this whole power struggle.

behnamoh 3y ago
they could've said nothing in the statement, but they went so far as to say that he wasn't "candid" with the board.
15457345234 3y ago
Why on earth would they do that? That would just open them up to liability. You're too used to this tech-sector 'put everything on twitter rn' bullshit immature behaviour. Do you see the boards of GM, IBM, etc slapfighting on twitter? No, you don't, because it's abnormal. Totally normal for a board to release a press release and then STFU. Weird twitter slapfights between CEOs and boards are not what we want to encourage. This isn't the pro-wrestling circuit.
- lazide 3y ago
  The existing statements seem like slander no? Not issuing the statement would be putting a lot of potential liability on them.
  - Zak 3y ago
    The existing statements would be libel if false. It's a little surprising they put something like that in a press release at all; it would be shockingly inept if they did so without the sort of documentation that would make a lawsuit futile. Of course, tho whole situation is a little shocking so maybe all bets are off.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      > The existing statements would be libel if false. Libel isn't really an issue here, because the statement from the board hardly made any factual assertions in the first place: > Mr. Altman’s departure follows 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 board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI. There are a ton of possible interpretations of "he was not consistently candid". However, there are lots of things that people can sue for besides outright libel/slander. I made the argument elsewhere that the legal nitpicking here isn't really that significant, because it's pretty easy to argue that the tenor of the board announcement would at least make it sound to a reasonable observer that Altman did something egregious.
    - nostrademons 3y ago
      Technically the only sentence in the statement that might be false is "Mr. Altman’s departure follows 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." And presumably this is why they used the "not consistently candid" weasel-wording. For that to be true, they only need to point to one material action that he didn't inform the board about (perhaps his chip startup, or Developer Day, or API access), and then point to the board meeting minutes, and then say "See, it's true. You did not inform us, the board, about these other actions you have taken, they matter to OpenAI's adherence to its mission, and therefore your inaction hindered our ability to exercise our responsibilities." Everything else in the statement appears to be completely factual. It's a bad statement because it unnecessarily burns bridges and implies potential wrongdoing (because every other executive departure statement is so tame), but it didn't, strictly speaking, say anything untrue. https://openai.com/blog/openai-announces-leadership-transition https://openai.com/blog/openai-announces-leadership-transiti...
      - Sebb767 3y ago
        On the other hand, these words are widely understood to mean "he lied" and judges (or juries) aren't stupid. Going for this kind of strong wording and then trying to weasel out by a minor technicality seems like a risky strategy, especially against someone having sufficient money to fight this until the bitter end.
        15457345234 3y ago
        Ain't a risky strategy if it's a true statement.
        layer8 3y ago
        I hope we live in a world where judges don’t consider this to be "strong wording".
        Sebb767 3y ago
        I hope we do. If these words would be on your recommendation letter or said by one of your job references, basically any HR person would understand it as "this employee was caught severely lying" and see it as a big warning not to hire you under any circumstances. I agree that in a casual context, this would be mild, but we're talking about professional press releases and judges acting oblivious to this context is not a good thing in my book.
    - akerl_ 3y ago
      There would need to be a probably false statement of face. The press release doesn’t seem to contain any of those.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    The board said "he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board". That could mean little more than he once neglected to inform the board of something the board felt was important, which is almost certainly true. It's almost certainly true for any CEO; if you take it literally and don't read between the lines it's a very mellow accusation. On HN and twitter people read that line and interpreted it to mean "he's a liar" or even "he raped his sister", but the board didn't actually say those things. He could try suing the board but I think he'd lose.
    - paulddraper 3y ago
      On HN and Twitter and everywhere else
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - junofan 3y ago
      Okay but taking corporate comms absolutely literally is kinda irrelevant in the context of… corporate comms.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - 15457345234 3y ago
    > The existing statements seem like slander no? I haven't read them, but if they're accurate then they're not slanderous. I know that if I was slandered I'd be quietly fuming and instructing lawyers, not posturing on twitter and taking pictures of myself 'back in the office' but then again I'm not a tech sector CEO and they seem to be made of different stuff. What do they say? If the facts support you, pound the facts. If the law supports you, pound the law. If neither support you, pound the table.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Modern growth tech is 80% perception, 20% reality. Because with the capital that good perception affords, you can build a different reality. Ergo, Altman seems to be spending more effort on managing perception than reality.
      - 15457345234 3y ago
        Yeah but people who engage in that type of behaviour usually aren't building a different reality, they're just bullshit artists.
        ethbr1 3y ago
        That's my point: bullshit artists who raise more capital (and spend it wisely) will outdeliver earnest engineers who don't. Because with capital, you can hire (mercenary) engineers.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        "Building different realities" only works to the extent that you surround yourself with sycophants. As soon as the people near you no longer care to play make believe, your alternate reality will *poof* away. Revealed to be nothing but smoke and mirrors.
        lazide 3y ago
        But then this thread isn’t about Elon Musk.
  - Sebb767 3y ago
    > Not issuing the statement would be putting a lot of potential liability on them. They need to proove that Sam wasn't candid once Sam dragged them into an actual court room. Shutting up might not be the winning move in the court of public opinion, but legally, it's probably not a bad move.
    - function_seven 3y ago
      The board issuing an apology could easily be the settlement that ensures this stays out of court. "If you retract your statement, I won't sue." "Ok, we retract it." Just like that.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        They could, but they don't have to.
  - layer8 3y ago
    I'd assume they would be able to prove that he wasn't consistently candid. Then it's not slander.
- j45 3y ago
  A few comments comparing this drama to an episode of Silicon Valley has resonated most of the weekend with me.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - 15457345234 3y ago
    Well unfortunately a lot of the tech sector seem to have adopted this weirdly public style of communicating both with each other and in general, in which things that should be discussed quietly in meetings are instead 'discussed' via twitter, including firings and publicly disparaging former employees, which is just tacky tacky behaviour and when you're then forced to publicly retract your statements/action you just end up looking like a complete moron, which is never a good look for a CEO. It's all very odd really, grown men acting like children online. The typing style, too, doesn't give a good impression. The weirdly basic language, limited vocabulary, lack of capitalisation - it really gives off a very odd vibe, very unprofessional.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  I have literally never seen an announcement by a board when they fired an exec that was as pointed as the OpenAI press release without there being some major malfeasance. When there is just a standard "disagreement of direction", there are usually some platitudes saying the exec is pursuing other opportunities, or even more forthright saying there was just a difference of opinion. I think any reasonable observer who is familiar with corporate press releases would naturally assume Altman had done something egregious given the language in the announcement.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
    If OpenAI really is trying to create AGI, its CEO should be held to a higher standard than an ordinary CEO
  - Sebb767 3y ago
    That's true, but we cannot fully exclude this just being a stupid, rushed move by the board, either, at least not yet. I would not bet on it, but it's a possibility.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      I think you've misunderstood my post. Yes, I do think it was a stupid, rushed move by the board. My point being is that I think it's totally reasonable for Altman to demand a statement saying there was no malfeasance given that the board's press release was unnecessarily pointed and harsh given that (as all the reporting I've read up to this point, including internal OpenAI memos) it was basically a difference of opinion in the direction of OpenAI that led to his ouster.
      - jcranmer 3y ago
        > (as all the reporting I've read up to this point, including internal OpenAI memos) it was basically a difference of opinion in the direction of OpenAI that led to his ouster. The reporting as I've seen has been essentially all one-sided, by people who support Altman, who obviously has a vested interest in portraying him as doing nothing wrong. Even the OpenAI memo doesn't exonerate him of wrongdoing--it just says that any wrongdoing he did doesn't implicate any work going on at OpenAI. If, for example, Altman was failing to disclose conflicts of interests to the board, that would comport with all statements given so far and still be quite serious wrongdoing for a CEO. Given that the statement was pointed and harsh enough for there to need to be wrongdoing to fully break the board's trust in the CEO, and there's a variety of wrongdoings that Altman could have done that wouldn't contradict available evidence, I'm inclined to believe that he in fact did do one of those wrongdoings.
- az226 3y ago
  Those boards don’t typically have nobodies on them with no credible experience on boards or startups.
- voisin 3y ago
  > That would just open them up to liability. Do it with an agreement that he waives his right to sue.
nostrademons 3y ago
Yeah, my immediate assumption upon reading the statement was that there was some scandal far worse than what's revealed here. If there's nothing further, they really screwed up with the wording. They should've fired him as CEO but allowed him to stay on as an advisor and then mutually agreed on some "Sam is resigning to devote more time to his other pursuits" wording, like what happens when most other executives get fired. In this case it'd even be true.
0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
>I would've thought that if he'd done something actually bad they would've come out and said it already Seems to me that if OpenAI is serious about building AGI, it's reasonable to replace their CEO even if the CEO has done a number of mildly-bad things. We should have high standards for a position that comes with so much responsibility.

behnamoh 3y ago

they could've said nothing in the statement, but they went so far as to say that he wasn't "candid" with the board.

15457345234 3y ago

Why on earth would they do that? That would just open them up to liability. You're too used to this tech-sector 'put everything on twitter rn' bullshit immature behaviour. Do you see the boards of GM, IBM, etc slapfighting on twitter? No, you don't, because it's abnormal. Totally normal for a board to release a press release and then STFU. Weird twitter slapfights between CEOs and boards are not what we want to encourage. This isn't the pro-wrestling circuit.

lazide 3y ago
The existing statements seem like slander no? Not issuing the statement would be putting a lot of potential liability on them.
- Zak 3y ago
  The existing statements would be libel if false. It's a little surprising they put something like that in a press release at all; it would be shockingly inept if they did so without the sort of documentation that would make a lawsuit futile. Of course, tho whole situation is a little shocking so maybe all bets are off.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    > The existing statements would be libel if false. Libel isn't really an issue here, because the statement from the board hardly made any factual assertions in the first place: > Mr. Altman’s departure follows 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 board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI. There are a ton of possible interpretations of "he was not consistently candid". However, there are lots of things that people can sue for besides outright libel/slander. I made the argument elsewhere that the legal nitpicking here isn't really that significant, because it's pretty easy to argue that the tenor of the board announcement would at least make it sound to a reasonable observer that Altman did something egregious.
  - nostrademons 3y ago
    Technically the only sentence in the statement that might be false is "Mr. Altman’s departure follows 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." And presumably this is why they used the "not consistently candid" weasel-wording. For that to be true, they only need to point to one material action that he didn't inform the board about (perhaps his chip startup, or Developer Day, or API access), and then point to the board meeting minutes, and then say "See, it's true. You did not inform us, the board, about these other actions you have taken, they matter to OpenAI's adherence to its mission, and therefore your inaction hindered our ability to exercise our responsibilities." Everything else in the statement appears to be completely factual. It's a bad statement because it unnecessarily burns bridges and implies potential wrongdoing (because every other executive departure statement is so tame), but it didn't, strictly speaking, say anything untrue. https://openai.com/blog/openai-announces-leadership-transition https://openai.com/blog/openai-announces-leadership-transiti...
    - Sebb767 3y ago
      On the other hand, these words are widely understood to mean "he lied" and judges (or juries) aren't stupid. Going for this kind of strong wording and then trying to weasel out by a minor technicality seems like a risky strategy, especially against someone having sufficient money to fight this until the bitter end.
      - 15457345234 3y ago
        Ain't a risky strategy if it's a true statement.
      - layer8 3y ago
        I hope we live in a world where judges don’t consider this to be "strong wording".
        Sebb767 3y ago
        I hope we do. If these words would be on your recommendation letter or said by one of your job references, basically any HR person would understand it as "this employee was caught severely lying" and see it as a big warning not to hire you under any circumstances. I agree that in a casual context, this would be mild, but we're talking about professional press releases and judges acting oblivious to this context is not a good thing in my book.
  - akerl_ 3y ago
    There would need to be a probably false statement of face. The press release doesn’t seem to contain any of those.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  The board said "he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board". That could mean little more than he once neglected to inform the board of something the board felt was important, which is almost certainly true. It's almost certainly true for any CEO; if you take it literally and don't read between the lines it's a very mellow accusation. On HN and twitter people read that line and interpreted it to mean "he's a liar" or even "he raped his sister", but the board didn't actually say those things. He could try suing the board but I think he'd lose.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    On HN and Twitter and everywhere else
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - junofan 3y ago
    Okay but taking corporate comms absolutely literally is kinda irrelevant in the context of… corporate comms.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      [flagged]
- 15457345234 3y ago
  > The existing statements seem like slander no? I haven't read them, but if they're accurate then they're not slanderous. I know that if I was slandered I'd be quietly fuming and instructing lawyers, not posturing on twitter and taking pictures of myself 'back in the office' but then again I'm not a tech sector CEO and they seem to be made of different stuff. What do they say? If the facts support you, pound the facts. If the law supports you, pound the law. If neither support you, pound the table.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Modern growth tech is 80% perception, 20% reality. Because with the capital that good perception affords, you can build a different reality. Ergo, Altman seems to be spending more effort on managing perception than reality.
    - 15457345234 3y ago
      Yeah but people who engage in that type of behaviour usually aren't building a different reality, they're just bullshit artists.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        That's my point: bullshit artists who raise more capital (and spend it wisely) will outdeliver earnest engineers who don't. Because with capital, you can hire (mercenary) engineers.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      "Building different realities" only works to the extent that you surround yourself with sycophants. As soon as the people near you no longer care to play make believe, your alternate reality will *poof* away. Revealed to be nothing but smoke and mirrors.
      - lazide 3y ago
        But then this thread isn’t about Elon Musk.
- Sebb767 3y ago
  > Not issuing the statement would be putting a lot of potential liability on them. They need to proove that Sam wasn't candid once Sam dragged them into an actual court room. Shutting up might not be the winning move in the court of public opinion, but legally, it's probably not a bad move.
  - function_seven 3y ago
    The board issuing an apology could easily be the settlement that ensures this stays out of court. "If you retract your statement, I won't sue." "Ok, we retract it." Just like that.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      They could, but they don't have to.
- layer8 3y ago
  I'd assume they would be able to prove that he wasn't consistently candid. Then it's not slander.
j45 3y ago
A few comments comparing this drama to an episode of Silicon Valley has resonated most of the weekend with me.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 15457345234 3y ago
  Well unfortunately a lot of the tech sector seem to have adopted this weirdly public style of communicating both with each other and in general, in which things that should be discussed quietly in meetings are instead 'discussed' via twitter, including firings and publicly disparaging former employees, which is just tacky tacky behaviour and when you're then forced to publicly retract your statements/action you just end up looking like a complete moron, which is never a good look for a CEO. It's all very odd really, grown men acting like children online. The typing style, too, doesn't give a good impression. The weirdly basic language, limited vocabulary, lack of capitalisation - it really gives off a very odd vibe, very unprofessional.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
I have literally never seen an announcement by a board when they fired an exec that was as pointed as the OpenAI press release without there being some major malfeasance. When there is just a standard "disagreement of direction", there are usually some platitudes saying the exec is pursuing other opportunities, or even more forthright saying there was just a difference of opinion. I think any reasonable observer who is familiar with corporate press releases would naturally assume Altman had done something egregious given the language in the announcement.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  If OpenAI really is trying to create AGI, its CEO should be held to a higher standard than an ordinary CEO
- Sebb767 3y ago
  That's true, but we cannot fully exclude this just being a stupid, rushed move by the board, either, at least not yet. I would not bet on it, but it's a possibility.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    I think you've misunderstood my post. Yes, I do think it was a stupid, rushed move by the board. My point being is that I think it's totally reasonable for Altman to demand a statement saying there was no malfeasance given that the board's press release was unnecessarily pointed and harsh given that (as all the reporting I've read up to this point, including internal OpenAI memos) it was basically a difference of opinion in the direction of OpenAI that led to his ouster.
    - jcranmer 3y ago
      > (as all the reporting I've read up to this point, including internal OpenAI memos) it was basically a difference of opinion in the direction of OpenAI that led to his ouster. The reporting as I've seen has been essentially all one-sided, by people who support Altman, who obviously has a vested interest in portraying him as doing nothing wrong. Even the OpenAI memo doesn't exonerate him of wrongdoing--it just says that any wrongdoing he did doesn't implicate any work going on at OpenAI. If, for example, Altman was failing to disclose conflicts of interests to the board, that would comport with all statements given so far and still be quite serious wrongdoing for a CEO. Given that the statement was pointed and harsh enough for there to need to be wrongdoing to fully break the board's trust in the CEO, and there's a variety of wrongdoings that Altman could have done that wouldn't contradict available evidence, I'm inclined to believe that he in fact did do one of those wrongdoings.
az226 3y ago
Those boards don’t typically have nobodies on them with no credible experience on boards or startups.
voisin 3y ago
> That would just open them up to liability. Do it with an agreement that he waives his right to sue.

nostrademons 3y ago

Yeah, my immediate assumption upon reading the statement was that there was some scandal far worse than what's revealed here. If there's nothing further, they really screwed up with the wording. They should've fired him as CEO but allowed him to stay on as an advisor and then mutually agreed on some "Sam is resigning to devote more time to his other pursuits" wording, like what happens when most other executives get fired. In this case it'd even be true.

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago

>I would've thought that if he'd done something actually bad they would've come out and said it already Seems to me that if OpenAI is serious about building AGI, it's reasonable to replace their CEO even if the CEO has done a number of mildly-bad things. We should have high standards for a position that comes with so much responsibility.