3 ms·

Well, suppose they had a good reason, but didn't want to smear Sam in public? That would mean that they're taking the publicity hit to do the classy thing. Or

Well, suppose they had a good reason, but didn't want to smear Sam in public? That would mean that they're taking the publicity hit to do the classy thing. Organizations used to do that, from time to time. Maybe some still do. Or maybe they can't release what the reason was because they don't actually have a good one, and trying to say what their reason was would just make them look either evil or incompetent. And as long as they're silent, we can't tell which it is. Given how badly this has been handled, though, "incompetent" seems likely...

notahacker 3y ago
If you don't want to smear Sam in public you don't cite him not being candid as the reason he's leaving. They certainly could have communicated better, but most of the actually good reasons are stuff you wouldn't expect a board to disclose, like "we told you not to do this large unannounced deal with a publicly listed company that we intend to totally renegotiate" or or "you lied about how much this tech sucks" or "you keep lying about this in-progress initiative we haven't announced yet and don't intend to launch in your departure notice"
brookst 3y ago
It's a theory, but it's not like they refrained from badmouthing him and kept it all professional. That would have looked like "after careful deliberation, we have determined that OpenAI cannot meet its mission under current management, and..." It's extremely strange to make it clear the firing is for cause, and to be vague about the cause, and then to issue statements that whatever the cause was it was not related to fiduciary issues or AI safety. It really does amount to "he did something really bad that created a crisis we had no choice but to respond to precipitously... but it wasn't all that bad and we don't want to talk about it" situation. I think "incompetent seems likely" is the only reasonable conclusion here.
CSMastermind 3y ago
I mean their statement all but smeared him in public. It's hard to think of what they could have said that would have been worse than what they did.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
That's how Ned Stark bit it. Trying to be honorable, lost the first move, then had his head chopped off.

notahacker 3y ago

If you don't want to smear Sam in public you don't cite him not being candid as the reason he's leaving. They certainly could have communicated better, but most of the actually good reasons are stuff you wouldn't expect a board to disclose, like "we told you not to do this large unannounced deal with a publicly listed company that we intend to totally renegotiate" or or "you lied about how much this tech sucks" or "you keep lying about this in-progress initiative we haven't announced yet and don't intend to launch in your departure notice"

brookst 3y ago

It's a theory, but it's not like they refrained from badmouthing him and kept it all professional. That would have looked like "after careful deliberation, we have determined that OpenAI cannot meet its mission under current management, and..." It's extremely strange to make it clear the firing is for cause, and to be vague about the cause, and then to issue statements that whatever the cause was it was not related to fiduciary issues or AI safety. It really does amount to "he did something really bad that created a crisis we had no choice but to respond to precipitously... but it wasn't all that bad and we don't want to talk about it" situation. I think "incompetent seems likely" is the only reasonable conclusion here.

CSMastermind 3y ago

I mean their statement all but smeared him in public. It's hard to think of what they could have said that would have been worse than what they did.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

That's how Ned Stark bit it. Trying to be honorable, lost the first move, then had his head chopped off.