3 ms·

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 i

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.