3 ms·

She specifically declines in the article to provide the additional context that would probably clarify everything. This is just more non-answers and only a tad

She specifically declines in the article to provide the additional context that would probably clarify everything. This is just more non-answers and only a tad more information than we had before (threats of violating a fiduciary duty). Nobody involved is being transparent about what went down here. Not sure we'll find out the full story here...

tfehring 3y ago
It's frustrating, but she's exposed to potentially massive personal liability for the board's actions. I'm surprised that she agreed to an interview at all - frankly, I probably wouldn't if I were in her position - and I'm sure her answers were carefully scripted and run by her attorney(s). I think this Reddit comment captures the most plausible story at this point: https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1812w04/comment/kabk73s/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1812w04/co...
- chewmieser 3y ago
  That’s great, thanks for the link there. Seems plausible enough to fill in the blanks.
- alvah 3y ago
  She wouldn't be the first high-profile member of the EA cult to talk to the press after a scandal, against the advice of any sane lawyer.
calf 3y ago
Article does give context as to what "inconsistently candid" meant: Altman allegedly went to each board member to say some negative things about Toner, but when board members got together to verify consistency they found out Altman said a false or misleading thing to at least one board member about Toner. That's not a good look on Altman at all, it looks like Altman was using divide-and-conquer in a skeezy way, spreading around negative impression, even rumors, about his bosses, as a means dispose of a problem.
- zainhoda 3y ago
  That information is just regurgitated from the New Yorker article not from this new interview with Toner.
  - calf 3y ago
    I think that's a technicality if the expressed concern was this piece was just non-answers. It's a regurgitated answer but still new information to many of us.
jonstewart 3y ago
Declining to give more details is what professionals typically do. In addition to being more risky one's self-interests and the interests of the organization, there are also often very good legal/confidentiality reasons not to run one's mouth off.

tfehring 3y ago

It's frustrating, but she's exposed to potentially massive personal liability for the board's actions. I'm surprised that she agreed to an interview at all - frankly, I probably wouldn't if I were in her position - and I'm sure her answers were carefully scripted and run by her attorney(s). I think this Reddit comment captures the most plausible story at this point: https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1812w04/comment/kabk73s/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1812w04/co...

chewmieser 3y ago
That’s great, thanks for the link there. Seems plausible enough to fill in the blanks.
alvah 3y ago
She wouldn't be the first high-profile member of the EA cult to talk to the press after a scandal, against the advice of any sane lawyer.

calf 3y ago

Article does give context as to what "inconsistently candid" meant: Altman allegedly went to each board member to say some negative things about Toner, but when board members got together to verify consistency they found out Altman said a false or misleading thing to at least one board member about Toner. That's not a good look on Altman at all, it looks like Altman was using divide-and-conquer in a skeezy way, spreading around negative impression, even rumors, about his bosses, as a means dispose of a problem.

zainhoda 3y ago
That information is just regurgitated from the New Yorker article not from this new interview with Toner.
- calf 3y ago
  I think that's a technicality if the expressed concern was this piece was just non-answers. It's a regurgitated answer but still new information to many of us.

jonstewart 3y ago

Declining to give more details is what professionals typically do. In addition to being more risky one's self-interests and the interests of the organization, there are also often very good legal/confidentiality reasons not to run one's mouth off.