4 ms·

The two reasons: > Sustkever is said to have offered two explanations he purportedly received from the board, according to one of the people familiar. One expl

The two reasons: > Sustkever is said to have offered two explanations he purportedly received from the board, according to one of the people familiar. One explanation was that Altman was said to have given two people at OpenAI the same project. > The other was that Altman allegedly gave two board members different opinions about a member of personnel. An OpenAI spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

bhouston 3y ago
You are a hero! I couldn’t access the article. Weirdly both of these do not seem to be fireable offences. Maybe the second if it was related to a personnel issue that maybe he had a conflict of interest with?
- Jensson 3y ago
  I posted it since that was hidden very deep in the article, it is annoying to find information among all that padding. > Weirdly both of these do not seem to be fireable offences Yeah I agree that doesn't seem egregious enough to warrant firing him on the spot. I can see why most of the company takes Altmans side here.
  - explaininjs 3y ago
    It sounds to me as if the board has not been consistently candid in its communications with the employees, and they have responded by firing it.
  - cpncrunch 3y ago
    The "different opinions about a member of personnel" is certainly an odd reason to fire him. It seems reasonable to have multiple opinions about a person (perhaps appearing as conflicting), or to change an opinion based on new information. It sounds like someone perhaps jumped to a very negative conclusion about Sam's intentions, and it would be interesting to find out which member of the board came to that conclusion. There's got to be someone in the driving seat of this train wreck, and I'm sure it will come out.
    - WalterSear 3y ago
      Maybe the personnel member is GPT-4.
fullshark 3y ago
Isn't Sustkever on the board? Why is this phrased like he isn't and is just delivering a message?
- bhouston 3y ago
  In this situation the most powerful people on the board should have been Altman, Brockman and Sutskever. The others were sort of nice to haves who were there just to fill it out. For them to run this coup is just insane. There has to be more to it. Someone has to be pulling the strings with a plan.
  - fullshark 3y ago
    Put me in the "Ilya didn't realize what firing Altman / demoting Brockman would actually mean and is trying to correct his mistake" camp.
    - tsunamifury 3y ago
      Then He should be fired for incompetence and never given a leadership position ever again. I don’t even like Sam but jeeze. Know the score what a fool.
      - nonethewiser 3y ago
        Exactly. Too many people arguing incompetence as if its a valid excuse. Imagine its even true - that they werent his reasons and he was just told them. He voted to fire him and then executed the firing despite not agreeing with the reasons himself? Completely inexcusable even in the bizarre scenario that its true.
    - skygazer 3y ago
      This could well be, but I still struggle to grasp it. He seemed so much smarter. Were they manipulative or beguiling? Does he cave to the merest social pressure? And that Quora CEO should have know such flimsy excuses were BS and this would be a firestorm. I’ve never seen group think so powerful, outside of junior devs and elementary school students. I’m generally not a conspiracy theorist, and I have no good candidate conspiracies in mind, but this situation feels so extraordinary that it practically begs for a shadowy figure with bags of cash.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
klyrs 3y ago
You've gotta keep in mind, the responses to prompts like this depend a lot on the temperature the model is being sampled under, precise phrasing of the prompt, and random chance. He was fired for being a stochastic parrot, or Sustkever hallucinated one or both stories, or maybe both. We'll never really know unless a certified prompt engineer takes charge of the inquest.

bhouston 3y ago

You are a hero! I couldn’t access the article. Weirdly both of these do not seem to be fireable offences. Maybe the second if it was related to a personnel issue that maybe he had a conflict of interest with?

Jensson 3y ago
I posted it since that was hidden very deep in the article, it is annoying to find information among all that padding. > Weirdly both of these do not seem to be fireable offences Yeah I agree that doesn't seem egregious enough to warrant firing him on the spot. I can see why most of the company takes Altmans side here.
- explaininjs 3y ago
  It sounds to me as if the board has not been consistently candid in its communications with the employees, and they have responded by firing it.
- cpncrunch 3y ago
  The "different opinions about a member of personnel" is certainly an odd reason to fire him. It seems reasonable to have multiple opinions about a person (perhaps appearing as conflicting), or to change an opinion based on new information. It sounds like someone perhaps jumped to a very negative conclusion about Sam's intentions, and it would be interesting to find out which member of the board came to that conclusion. There's got to be someone in the driving seat of this train wreck, and I'm sure it will come out.
  - WalterSear 3y ago
    Maybe the personnel member is GPT-4.

fullshark 3y ago

Isn't Sustkever on the board? Why is this phrased like he isn't and is just delivering a message?

bhouston 3y ago
In this situation the most powerful people on the board should have been Altman, Brockman and Sutskever. The others were sort of nice to haves who were there just to fill it out. For them to run this coup is just insane. There has to be more to it. Someone has to be pulling the strings with a plan.
- fullshark 3y ago
  Put me in the "Ilya didn't realize what firing Altman / demoting Brockman would actually mean and is trying to correct his mistake" camp.
  - tsunamifury 3y ago
    Then He should be fired for incompetence and never given a leadership position ever again. I don’t even like Sam but jeeze. Know the score what a fool.
    - nonethewiser 3y ago
      Exactly. Too many people arguing incompetence as if its a valid excuse. Imagine its even true - that they werent his reasons and he was just told them. He voted to fire him and then executed the firing despite not agreeing with the reasons himself? Completely inexcusable even in the bizarre scenario that its true.
  - skygazer 3y ago
    This could well be, but I still struggle to grasp it. He seemed so much smarter. Were they manipulative or beguiling? Does he cave to the merest social pressure? And that Quora CEO should have know such flimsy excuses were BS and this would be a firestorm. I’ve never seen group think so powerful, outside of junior devs and elementary school students. I’m generally not a conspiracy theorist, and I have no good candidate conspiracies in mind, but this situation feels so extraordinary that it practically begs for a shadowy figure with bags of cash.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

klyrs 3y ago

You've gotta keep in mind, the responses to prompts like this depend a lot on the temperature the model is being sampled under, precise phrasing of the prompt, and random chance. He was fired for being a stochastic parrot, or Sustkever hallucinated one or both stories, or maybe both. We'll never really know unless a certified prompt engineer takes charge of the inquest.