3 ms·
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 conclud
by 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 agoOn 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 agoAin't a risky strategy if it's a true statement.
- layer8 3y agoI hope we live in a world where judges don’t consider this to be "strong wording".
- Sebb767 3y agoI 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.
- 15457345234 3y agoThe strength of the wording is irrelevant if the statement is accurate.
- mcpackieh 3y agoCommon people generally don't get the "spend more time with family" treatment when they get fired. Therefore rich people shouldn't be entitled to it.
- lazide 3y ago'rich people' don't get it because they're vaguely entitled to it. they get it because the other party is afraid of the consequences if they don't get it.
- 15457345234 3y agoIf that's the wording that people are claiming is 'unnecessarily pointed' then wow, people really are carrying water in a weirdly dedicated fashion.