5 ms·

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 possibi

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.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    Hard disagree. Even if you ignore everything that has been reported about the rationale behind the decision, the board objectively executed this decision extremely poorly, managing to piss off their biggest backers, prominent former board members, and lots of their employees. If the board has some evidence of a big smoking gun of egregious behavior, I have to believe they would have shown their cards by now, instead of reports about them bringing Sam back and all of them resigning as terms of his reinstatement.
    - 15457345234 3y ago
      > I have to believe they would have shown their cards by now Why? Also their 'cards' are probably quite strictly confidential information. They gain nothing by going to the 'court of public opinion'. They might share their reasoning with some of their largest investors in private, but their lawyers will absolutely be telling them not to reveal anything to the public. > reports about them bringing Sam back There are no reports about _them_ bringing him back. There are reports floating about which seem to suggest they will all snap quit and then he will return, but these seem to have no basis and none of them are emanating from the direction of the company. They seem highly speculative, and seem, to me, very much like wishful thinking from the SV 'in-crowd' that all back each other up no matter what. I do not believe that Sam will return to OpenAI in any role whatsoever, and I believe that the board will hold their position. I see the board here acting like adults - releasing a professionally written press release then falling silent - while the other side weirdly play to the crowd, not realising that the crowd don't matter, this isn't a reality TV show, the audience doesn't get a vote.
      - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
        None of your speculation comports with the facts: 1. The OpenAI COO already sent a memo saying Altman was not fired for malfeasance but for a "breakdown in communication" between the CEO and the board: https://www.axios.com/2023/11/18/openai-memo-altman-firing-malfeasance-communications-breakdown https://www.axios.com/2023/11/18/openai-memo-altman-firing-m... 2. Besides the widely reported news about there being discussions, "5PM deadlines", etc. about reinstating Altman, someone obviously let him in the building in an official capacity, and given all the news I highly doubt it was so he could pack up his office on a Sunday: https://twitter.com/sama/status/1726345564059832609 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1726345564059832609 and https://twitter.com/jasonkwon/status/1726348678116548979 https://twitter.com/jasonkwon/status/1726348678116548979 (second tweet posted by OpenAI's Chief Strategy Officer).
        15457345234 3y ago
        > None of your speculation comports with the facts > The OpenAI COO already sent a memo saying Altman was not fired for malfeasance By what means have you ascertained that the contents of the memo are factual? > someone obviously let him in the building in an official capacity Probably one of the same personality-cult types currently carrying water for him. Doesn't mean shit that he got someone to let him in the office. (Probably means they're getting - deservedly - fired.)

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.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Hard disagree. Even if you ignore everything that has been reported about the rationale behind the decision, the board objectively executed this decision extremely poorly, managing to piss off their biggest backers, prominent former board members, and lots of their employees. If the board has some evidence of a big smoking gun of egregious behavior, I have to believe they would have shown their cards by now, instead of reports about them bringing Sam back and all of them resigning as terms of his reinstatement.
  - 15457345234 3y ago
    > I have to believe they would have shown their cards by now Why? Also their 'cards' are probably quite strictly confidential information. They gain nothing by going to the 'court of public opinion'. They might share their reasoning with some of their largest investors in private, but their lawyers will absolutely be telling them not to reveal anything to the public. > reports about them bringing Sam back There are no reports about _them_ bringing him back. There are reports floating about which seem to suggest they will all snap quit and then he will return, but these seem to have no basis and none of them are emanating from the direction of the company. They seem highly speculative, and seem, to me, very much like wishful thinking from the SV 'in-crowd' that all back each other up no matter what. I do not believe that Sam will return to OpenAI in any role whatsoever, and I believe that the board will hold their position. I see the board here acting like adults - releasing a professionally written press release then falling silent - while the other side weirdly play to the crowd, not realising that the crowd don't matter, this isn't a reality TV show, the audience doesn't get a vote.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      None of your speculation comports with the facts: 1. The OpenAI COO already sent a memo saying Altman was not fired for malfeasance but for a "breakdown in communication" between the CEO and the board: https://www.axios.com/2023/11/18/openai-memo-altman-firing-malfeasance-communications-breakdown https://www.axios.com/2023/11/18/openai-memo-altman-firing-m... 2. Besides the widely reported news about there being discussions, "5PM deadlines", etc. about reinstating Altman, someone obviously let him in the building in an official capacity, and given all the news I highly doubt it was so he could pack up his office on a Sunday: https://twitter.com/sama/status/1726345564059832609 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1726345564059832609 and https://twitter.com/jasonkwon/status/1726348678116548979 https://twitter.com/jasonkwon/status/1726348678116548979 (second tweet posted by OpenAI's Chief Strategy Officer).
      - 15457345234 3y ago
        > None of your speculation comports with the facts > The OpenAI COO already sent a memo saying Altman was not fired for malfeasance By what means have you ascertained that the contents of the memo are factual? > someone obviously let him in the building in an official capacity Probably one of the same personality-cult types currently carrying water for him. Doesn't mean shit that he got someone to let him in the office. (Probably means they're getting - deservedly - fired.)