3 ms·

> but this was obviously done in a sloppy manner I don't think it was done in a sloppy manner, I think there's a huge amount of spin and froth being generated

> but this was obviously done in a sloppy manner I don't think it was done in a sloppy manner, I think there's a huge amount of spin and froth being generated to make it _look_ like it was done in a sloppy manner, but the reality is that the board took an executive action, released a discreet and concisely worded press release and then fell silent, which is 100% professional behaviour. To me it's the other side that are acting sloppily, they're thrashing around like maniacs, they're obviously calling in favours behind the scenes as supportive articles are popping up all over the place, apparently employees were calling other employees in the middle of the night urging them to sign the 'I'll quit unless' letter, employees have been fed a misleading narrative (two of them, actually) about why the action was taken in the first place which riled them up... I have to assume here that the board - as they're the ones acting professionally - similarly acted professionally before the firing and discussed the matter at great length and only resorted to this last minute firing because of exigent circumstances. The fact that a fired employee was able to cajole/bluff/whatever his way back into the office to prove some sort of point suggests that the board's action may have been necessary. What exactly was done during that time in the office, one might ask? Were systems accessed? Surely it was an unauthorised entry and a major security violation. You do see that that action (re-entering the office after being fired) gives off lunatic vibes, don't you? Maybe it really did come down to 'yeah you're technically my boss but I'm gonna do whatever the hell I want and there's nothing you can do about it because everyone loves me' to which the board's only possible course of action is to fire immediately.

foota 3y ago
I don't think Sam cajoled their way and talked to the employees, as I understand it Ilya talked with the staff and revealed what they claimed were the reasons for the firing.
- 15457345234 3y ago
  In your opinion, was a crime committed when that person returned to the office? Either by himself or by the person that permitted him access knowing beyond any reasonable doubt that they were not authorized to be there? If systems were accessed, was another crime committed? If a person facilitated that access, has the boundary for 'conspiracy to commit...' been reached?
  - foota 3y ago
    What? It's my understanding Sam Altman was invited back to talk to the board, and Ilya is still employed there.
    - 15457345234 3y ago
      Were the board members in the office on that day? I just find the whole thing weird. I just think it seems unlikely that a board would decide something then about-face so rapidly as to have a meeting at the office the next day. It would be conventional for further meetings to take place at the offices of lawyers, for example. It would also be normal for the non-fired members of staff to be instructed to have no further contact with the fired person without legal counsel present. Sometimes it seems very much like everyone here is really playing to the cameras in a big way.

foota 3y ago

I don't think Sam cajoled their way and talked to the employees, as I understand it Ilya talked with the staff and revealed what they claimed were the reasons for the firing.

15457345234 3y ago
In your opinion, was a crime committed when that person returned to the office? Either by himself or by the person that permitted him access knowing beyond any reasonable doubt that they were not authorized to be there? If systems were accessed, was another crime committed? If a person facilitated that access, has the boundary for 'conspiracy to commit...' been reached?
- foota 3y ago
  What? It's my understanding Sam Altman was invited back to talk to the board, and Ilya is still employed there.
  - 15457345234 3y ago
    Were the board members in the office on that day? I just find the whole thing weird. I just think it seems unlikely that a board would decide something then about-face so rapidly as to have a meeting at the office the next day. It would be conventional for further meetings to take place at the offices of lawyers, for example. It would also be normal for the non-fired members of staff to be instructed to have no further contact with the fired person without legal counsel present. Sometimes it seems very much like everyone here is really playing to the cameras in a big way.