17 ms·

The most embarassing thing about this isn't that the board decided to fire the CEO. That happens all the time. Many startups replace their CEO, it isn't always

by lacker 3y ago

The most embarassing thing about this isn't that the board decided to fire the CEO. That happens all the time. Many startups replace their CEO, it isn't always clear whether it's the right decision, but that's the responsibility of the board. The embarassing part is that the board decided to fire the CEO, announced their decision, refused to say why, attempted to put in place a new CEO but had to immediately demote the new CEO (Mira) after she rejected their plan, upset and alienated their core partners, along with almost all of their employees, and then publicly backtracked to undo the firing that led to this all happening. Once you screw this up to such an incredible degree, how can anyone really trust that you were doing the rest of your job well?

brindlejim 3y ago
[flagged]
caesil 3y ago
Interesting how an intellectual movement claiming to know better than anyone else how development of an unpredictable technology might pan out over the course of years failed to predict how one decision would pan out over the course of a single weekend. Perhaps there's some level of overconfidence at play from systems thinkers who overintellectualize their ability to conceptualize and extrapolate forward an impossibly complex system.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  > Perhaps there's some level of overconfidence at play from systems thinkers who overintellectualize their ability to conceptualize and extrapolate forward an impossibly complex system. You may well be on to something. I'd trust a cabal of science fiction writers more than that I would trust these self appointed governors of our collective future. They lack imagination, for starters.
  - OccamsMirror 3y ago
    Science fiction writers like L. Ron Hubbard?
    - hallway_monitor 3y ago
      Good science fiction writers. Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, even Orson Scott Card I'd trust more than today's politicians.
      - rurp 3y ago
        I'm not sure we want Orson Scott Card deciding the future of humanity given his outspoken racist and homophobic beliefs, not to mention his warnings about Obama raising a secret army to become the next Hitler.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        All four of those have some asterisks after their name that you may want to become familiar with.
        marcellus23 3y ago
        Who doesn't?
        dekhn 3y ago
        Please say what you mean.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        If you insist: - Heinlein https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/03/robert-a-heinlein-the-giant-of-sf-was-sexist-racist-and-certainly-no-stylist/ - Asimov https://www.publicbooks.org/asimovs-empire-asimovs-wall/ - Clarke https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjxp5m/we-asked-people-what-childhood-moment-shaped-them-the-most (nebulous, but credible) - Orson Scott Card https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card#Homosexuality_2 Sorry if that toppled any of your heroes. I have book by all of them on my shelves but they're not necessarily saints.
  - throwuwu 3y ago
    Considering they get most of their doomsday predictions from science fiction I’d say that would be a smart bet. Why get it second hand, just go right to the source.
- spacecadet 3y ago
  Always has been!
- empath-nirvana 3y ago
  To put it another way, how are they going to control a super intelligent AI when they can't even control Sam Altman.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
    I mean, that's essentially the thesis of the notkilleveryoneist position: We don't know how to control powerful agents, and we need to pause AI development in order to figure out.
  - patcon 3y ago
    You're making the case for the side you're critiquing
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  >Perhaps there's some level of overconfidence at play from systems thinkers who overintellectualize their ability to conceptualize and extrapolate forward an impossibly complex system. Actually this is more or less the point that Eliezer Yudkowsky makes in this essay about the need for caution in AI development: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/03/so_far_unfriend.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/03/so_far_unfriend.htm... (see especially points A/B/C/D) I doubt overconfidence is a problem specific to effective altruism. In any case, any good machine learning engineer knows that a dataset with only a single data point is essentially worthless -- even if we grant the premise that the board took the wrong action given the information they had available to them at the time.
- guiambros 3y ago
  It's ironic how they'd have been more successful if they had followed recommendations from their own LLM [1] (or Bard [2]). Of course the recommendations are not that novel; that's CEO succession planning 101. But I guess none of those four have done any large succession planning, and were clearly out of their depth. [1] https://chat.openai.com/share/e77bc868-fe27-4346-9c13-0908e84a67de https://chat.openai.com/share/e77bc868-fe27-4346-9c13-0908e8... [2] https://g.co/bard/share/549edfddc624 https://g.co/bard/share/549edfddc624
- NumberWangMan 3y ago
  > how development of an unpredictable technology might pan out > how one decision would pan out I'm not sure what point you are making here. Are you trying to say "see, the AI not-kill-everyone-ists couldn't predict the future even in the short term, therefore we shouldn't put much credence into the the idea that the specific examples of AI doom they have given will happen"? Or are you trying to imply that the idea of AI doom as a whole is bunk, because we can't predict the future... therefore everything will be fine...?
NearAP 3y ago
> but had to immediately demote the new CEO (Mira) after she rejected their plan According to reports, Mira was informed of the decision to fire Sam the night before Sam was fired. There's no indication she was against it and she also didn't inform Sam. So, I don't get this "she rejected their plan". If the board informed her they were going to fire Sam, it seems logical that they also informed her they were going to give her the interim CEO position. I have no knowledge of this (it just kind of makes sense to me).
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That may have revolved around the fact that there was no valid reason that they could put up to defend the firing. After all, if they had then she may well have stayed on board, the same goes for CEO #3.
  - NearAP 3y ago
    That still doesn't address the specific issue I was responding to. Are you saying they told Mira they were going to fire Sam and they didn't give her a reason but she was still okay with it?
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Either that or they told her that they had good reasons that would be revealed in time.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  > So, I don't get this "she rejected their plan" Mira immediately started trying Sam back. [1] If that's not rejecting the board's plans, I don't know what is. [1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/openais-mira-murati-aims-to-re-hire-sam-altman-greg-brockman-after-exits/articleshow/105345119.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/openais...
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> Once you screw this up to such an incredible degree, how can anyone really trust that you were doing the rest of your job well? As someone who pretty harshly described the board's actions, I agree with the first part of what you wrote, but I don't agree with this. People can be good at critical aspects of their job while lacking the maturity to understand large group dynamics. I thought this quote from the article said a lot: > The board members weren’t prepared for the fallout from their decision. The members, including Toner, were taken aback by staffers’ apparent willingness to abandon the company without Altman at the helm and the extent to which the management team sided with the ousted CEO, according to people familiar with the matter. It's pretty hard to me to think, based on the board's initial press release, that there wouldn't be a huge fallout from this decision. The release also made me think that Altman had done something truly egregious/malevolent, and that wasn't the case. What I saw this as was a group of people who had real concerns about Altman's leadership, and some of those concerns ended up sounding pretty valid, but who didn't have the experience/maturity to understand how to go about the next step. OpenAI's "frankenstein" org structure, with a board beholden to the nonprofit's charter but also responsible for billions in investor capital, also helped contribute to this cluster-f.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  The scariest two words: 'unconsciously incompetent'. That's where the biggest accidents come from. At least you can recognize malice and do something about it.
- WillPostForFood 3y ago
  >What I saw this as was a group of people who had real concerns about Altman's leadership, and some of those concerns ended up sounding pretty valid, What did you hear that sounded valid? Toner had her chance to make her case here, and it was simply that Altman tried to get her fired, so she retaliated. It wasn't about safety or leadership. It was petty politics over board control.
  - tcbawo 3y ago
    The article alleges that the board compared notes after speaking individually with Altman and determined that he had misrepresented statements/opinions from the other board members when speaking to them one on one. This caused the board to believe Altman is/was not being genuine and honest with them. Is an attempt to manipulate the other board members into firing one board member reason enough to be fired?
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
"Once you screw this up to such an incredible degree, how can anyone really trust that you were doing the rest of your job well." How can anyone take any "AI" company seriously other than as a get rich quick scheme. Doubtful a successful investor focused on management would bother with a company like OpenAI. https://fortune.com/2023/05/06/ai-warren-buffett-charlie-munger-berkshire-hathaway/ https://fortune.com/2023/05/06/ai-warren-buffett-charlie-mun... The probability of OpenAI employing wackos, like the guy at Google who thought automplete was sentient, is very high.
- gaganyaan 3y ago
  The dismissive autocomplete meme needs to die.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  "AI" is an inferior form of autocomplete. Autocomplete normally the user to choose the most appropriate completion, or choose none of they all suck, while "AI" does not even allow the user to select from multiple choice, it forces one on the user, no matter how dumb. It's a classic tactic used by so-called "tech" companies: remove user choice.
7e 3y ago
Embarrassing? It’s a complex system and it’s impossible to predict the future when so many parties are involved. Altman started the chaos, but somehow avoids the blame.
woopsn 3y ago
OpenAI's oversight structure is plainly stupid by any measure. Their CEO and core "partners" liquidated the board and reformed it within a few days of his firing. The buck stops with Sam. The only thing Helen Toner screwed up was being an associate professor with net worth < $500,000,000.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  I've made this point before, but the ratio of "people criticizing OpenAI's legal structure" to "people proposing a better legal structure" in these discussions is remarkably high. Not one critic I've seen has stated what the best legal structure for OpenAI should actually have been, in a world where OpenAI really is stewarding a technology that could be an existential threat to humans. I really wish they would do so, because then we'd have a shot at improving OpenAI's governance. But so far it's been crickets. BTW, I think one of the big lessons of this episode is that legal structure matters much less than you'd think. On paper, OpenAI is supposed to follow its charter https://openai.com/charter https://openai.com/charter and the board had the power to fire Sam. In practice, Sam was kinda sorta violating the charter, but he's a charismatic leader who was about to bring in a big payday for the employees (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/30/openai-tender-offer-on-track-despite-leadership-fracas-sources.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/30/openai-tender-offer-on-track...), and that turned out to matter more than the org's legal structure.
  - woopsn 3y ago
    In that world there is no alternative, we should shut them down and break their stuff.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
      Public opinion polls show significant support for regulating AI companies, e.g. here's one survey: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/poll-shows-british-public-supports-moratorium-smarter-than-human-qvbpc https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/poll-shows-british-public-sup... Here's a group pushing for regulation and looking for volunteers: https://pauseai.info/ https://pauseai.info/ I would hesitate to physically break stuff -- sounds potentially unethical and could harm momentum for regulation
0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
>The embarassing part is that the board decided to fire the CEO, announced their decision, refused to say why, attempted to put in place a new CEO but had to immediately demote the new CEO (Mira) after she rejected their plan, upset and alienated their core partners, along with almost all of their employees, and then publicly backtracked to undo the firing that led to this all happening. I'm reminded of these great PG tweets: >When people criticize an action on the grounds of the "optics," they're almost always full of shit. All they're really saying is "What you did looks bad." But if they phrased it that way, they'd have to answer the question "Was it actually bad, or not?" >If someone did something bad, you don't need to talk about "optics." And if they did something that seems bad but that you know isn't, why are you criticizing it at all? You should instead be explaining why it's not as bad as it seems. https://nitter.net/paulg/status/1728015636771504300#m https://nitter.net/paulg/status/1728015636771504300#m The situation is similar if you criticize an action on the grounds that "it upset people". If the action was actually bad, you should be able to explain why directly. Here are some quotes from the OpenAI charter: >We will attempt to directly build safe and beneficial AGI, but will also consider our mission fulfilled if our work aids others to achieve this outcome. >... >Our primary fiduciary duty is to humanity. >... >We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project. https://openai.com/charter https://openai.com/charter And here's a quote from the OP: >In October, Toner, who is director of strategy at a think tank in Washington, D.C., co-wrote a paper on AI safety. The paper said OpenAI’s launch of ChatGPT sparked a “sense of urgency inside major tech companies” that led them to fast-track AI products to keep up. It also said Anthropic, an OpenAI competitor, avoided “stoking the flames of AI hype” by waiting to release its chatbot. >After publication, Altman confronted Toner, saying she had harmed OpenAI by criticizing the company so publicly. Then he went behind her back, people familiar with the situation said. Who is doing a better job of upholding the charter in this situation: Altman, or Toner? The "people are upset" criticism essentially states that people became upset when Toner attempted to actually uphold the charter. To me, that says more about those people than it says about Toner.
- jacquesm 3y ago

by lacker 3y ago

brindlejim 3y ago

[flagged]

caesil 3y ago

Interesting how an intellectual movement claiming to know better than anyone else how development of an unpredictable technology might pan out over the course of years failed to predict how one decision would pan out over the course of a single weekend. Perhaps there's some level of overconfidence at play from systems thinkers who overintellectualize their ability to conceptualize and extrapolate forward an impossibly complex system.

jacquesm 3y ago
> Perhaps there's some level of overconfidence at play from systems thinkers who overintellectualize their ability to conceptualize and extrapolate forward an impossibly complex system. You may well be on to something. I'd trust a cabal of science fiction writers more than that I would trust these self appointed governors of our collective future. They lack imagination, for starters.
- OccamsMirror 3y ago
  Science fiction writers like L. Ron Hubbard?
  - hallway_monitor 3y ago
    Good science fiction writers. Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, even Orson Scott Card I'd trust more than today's politicians.
    - rurp 3y ago
      I'm not sure we want Orson Scott Card deciding the future of humanity given his outspoken racist and homophobic beliefs, not to mention his warnings about Obama raising a secret army to become the next Hitler.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      All four of those have some asterisks after their name that you may want to become familiar with.
      - marcellus23 3y ago
        Who doesn't?
      - dekhn 3y ago
        Please say what you mean.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        If you insist: - Heinlein https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/03/robert-a-heinlein-the-giant-of-sf-was-sexist-racist-and-certainly-no-stylist/ - Asimov https://www.publicbooks.org/asimovs-empire-asimovs-wall/ - Clarke https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjxp5m/we-asked-people-what-childhood-moment-shaped-them-the-most (nebulous, but credible) - Orson Scott Card https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card#Homosexuality_2 Sorry if that toppled any of your heroes. I have book by all of them on my shelves but they're not necessarily saints.
- throwuwu 3y ago
  Considering they get most of their doomsday predictions from science fiction I’d say that would be a smart bet. Why get it second hand, just go right to the source.
spacecadet 3y ago
Always has been!
empath-nirvana 3y ago
To put it another way, how are they going to control a super intelligent AI when they can't even control Sam Altman.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  I mean, that's essentially the thesis of the notkilleveryoneist position: We don't know how to control powerful agents, and we need to pause AI development in order to figure out.
- patcon 3y ago
  You're making the case for the side you're critiquing
0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
>Perhaps there's some level of overconfidence at play from systems thinkers who overintellectualize their ability to conceptualize and extrapolate forward an impossibly complex system. Actually this is more or less the point that Eliezer Yudkowsky makes in this essay about the need for caution in AI development: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/03/so_far_unfriend.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/03/so_far_unfriend.htm... (see especially points A/B/C/D) I doubt overconfidence is a problem specific to effective altruism. In any case, any good machine learning engineer knows that a dataset with only a single data point is essentially worthless -- even if we grant the premise that the board took the wrong action given the information they had available to them at the time.
guiambros 3y ago
It's ironic how they'd have been more successful if they had followed recommendations from their own LLM [1] (or Bard [2]). Of course the recommendations are not that novel; that's CEO succession planning 101. But I guess none of those four have done any large succession planning, and were clearly out of their depth. [1] https://chat.openai.com/share/e77bc868-fe27-4346-9c13-0908e84a67de https://chat.openai.com/share/e77bc868-fe27-4346-9c13-0908e8... [2] https://g.co/bard/share/549edfddc624 https://g.co/bard/share/549edfddc624
NumberWangMan 3y ago
> how development of an unpredictable technology might pan out > how one decision would pan out I'm not sure what point you are making here. Are you trying to say "see, the AI not-kill-everyone-ists couldn't predict the future even in the short term, therefore we shouldn't put much credence into the the idea that the specific examples of AI doom they have given will happen"? Or are you trying to imply that the idea of AI doom as a whole is bunk, because we can't predict the future... therefore everything will be fine...?

NearAP 3y ago

> but had to immediately demote the new CEO (Mira) after she rejected their plan According to reports, Mira was informed of the decision to fire Sam the night before Sam was fired. There's no indication she was against it and she also didn't inform Sam. So, I don't get this "she rejected their plan". If the board informed her they were going to fire Sam, it seems logical that they also informed her they were going to give her the interim CEO position. I have no knowledge of this (it just kind of makes sense to me).

jacquesm 3y ago
That may have revolved around the fact that there was no valid reason that they could put up to defend the firing. After all, if they had then she may well have stayed on board, the same goes for CEO #3.
- NearAP 3y ago
  That still doesn't address the specific issue I was responding to. Are you saying they told Mira they were going to fire Sam and they didn't give her a reason but she was still okay with it?
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Either that or they told her that they had good reasons that would be revealed in time.
paulddraper 3y ago
> So, I don't get this "she rejected their plan" Mira immediately started trying Sam back. [1] If that's not rejecting the board's plans, I don't know what is. [1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/openais-mira-murati-aims-to-re-hire-sam-altman-greg-brockman-after-exits/articleshow/105345119.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/openais...

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

> Once you screw this up to such an incredible degree, how can anyone really trust that you were doing the rest of your job well? As someone who pretty harshly described the board's actions, I agree with the first part of what you wrote, but I don't agree with this. People can be good at critical aspects of their job while lacking the maturity to understand large group dynamics. I thought this quote from the article said a lot: > The board members weren’t prepared for the fallout from their decision. The members, including Toner, were taken aback by staffers’ apparent willingness to abandon the company without Altman at the helm and the extent to which the management team sided with the ousted CEO, according to people familiar with the matter. It's pretty hard to me to think, based on the board's initial press release, that there wouldn't be a huge fallout from this decision. The release also made me think that Altman had done something truly egregious/malevolent, and that wasn't the case. What I saw this as was a group of people who had real concerns about Altman's leadership, and some of those concerns ended up sounding pretty valid, but who didn't have the experience/maturity to understand how to go about the next step. OpenAI's "frankenstein" org structure, with a board beholden to the nonprofit's charter but also responsible for billions in investor capital, also helped contribute to this cluster-f.

jacquesm 3y ago
The scariest two words: 'unconsciously incompetent'. That's where the biggest accidents come from. At least you can recognize malice and do something about it.
WillPostForFood 3y ago
>What I saw this as was a group of people who had real concerns about Altman's leadership, and some of those concerns ended up sounding pretty valid, What did you hear that sounded valid? Toner had her chance to make her case here, and it was simply that Altman tried to get her fired, so she retaliated. It wasn't about safety or leadership. It was petty politics over board control.
- tcbawo 3y ago
  The article alleges that the board compared notes after speaking individually with Altman and determined that he had misrepresented statements/opinions from the other board members when speaking to them one on one. This caused the board to believe Altman is/was not being genuine and honest with them. Is an attempt to manipulate the other board members into firing one board member reason enough to be fired?

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

"Once you screw this up to such an incredible degree, how can anyone really trust that you were doing the rest of your job well." How can anyone take any "AI" company seriously other than as a get rich quick scheme. Doubtful a successful investor focused on management would bother with a company like OpenAI. https://fortune.com/2023/05/06/ai-warren-buffett-charlie-munger-berkshire-hathaway/ https://fortune.com/2023/05/06/ai-warren-buffett-charlie-mun... The probability of OpenAI employing wackos, like the guy at Google who thought automplete was sentient, is very high.

gaganyaan 3y ago
The dismissive autocomplete meme needs to die.
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
"AI" is an inferior form of autocomplete. Autocomplete normally the user to choose the most appropriate completion, or choose none of they all suck, while "AI" does not even allow the user to select from multiple choice, it forces one on the user, no matter how dumb. It's a classic tactic used by so-called "tech" companies: remove user choice.

7e 3y ago

Embarrassing? It’s a complex system and it’s impossible to predict the future when so many parties are involved. Altman started the chaos, but somehow avoids the blame.

woopsn 3y ago

OpenAI's oversight structure is plainly stupid by any measure. Their CEO and core "partners" liquidated the board and reformed it within a few days of his firing. The buck stops with Sam. The only thing Helen Toner screwed up was being an associate professor with net worth < $500,000,000.

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
I've made this point before, but the ratio of "people criticizing OpenAI's legal structure" to "people proposing a better legal structure" in these discussions is remarkably high. Not one critic I've seen has stated what the best legal structure for OpenAI should actually have been, in a world where OpenAI really is stewarding a technology that could be an existential threat to humans. I really wish they would do so, because then we'd have a shot at improving OpenAI's governance. But so far it's been crickets. BTW, I think one of the big lessons of this episode is that legal structure matters much less than you'd think. On paper, OpenAI is supposed to follow its charter https://openai.com/charter https://openai.com/charter and the board had the power to fire Sam. In practice, Sam was kinda sorta violating the charter, but he's a charismatic leader who was about to bring in a big payday for the employees (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/30/openai-tender-offer-on-track-despite-leadership-fracas-sources.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/30/openai-tender-offer-on-track...), and that turned out to matter more than the org's legal structure.
- woopsn 3y ago
  In that world there is no alternative, we should shut them down and break their stuff.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
    Public opinion polls show significant support for regulating AI companies, e.g. here's one survey: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/poll-shows-british-public-supports-moratorium-smarter-than-human-qvbpc https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/poll-shows-british-public-sup... Here's a group pushing for regulation and looking for volunteers: https://pauseai.info/ https://pauseai.info/ I would hesitate to physically break stuff -- sounds potentially unethical and could harm momentum for regulation

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago

>The embarassing part is that the board decided to fire the CEO, announced their decision, refused to say why, attempted to put in place a new CEO but had to immediately demote the new CEO (Mira) after she rejected their plan, upset and alienated their core partners, along with almost all of their employees, and then publicly backtracked to undo the firing that led to this all happening. I'm reminded of these great PG tweets: >When people criticize an action on the grounds of the "optics," they're almost always full of shit. All they're really saying is "What you did looks bad." But if they phrased it that way, they'd have to answer the question "Was it actually bad, or not?" >If someone did something bad, you don't need to talk about "optics." And if they did something that seems bad but that you know isn't, why are you criticizing it at all? You should instead be explaining why it's not as bad as it seems. https://nitter.net/paulg/status/1728015636771504300#m https://nitter.net/paulg/status/1728015636771504300#m The situation is similar if you criticize an action on the grounds that "it upset people". If the action was actually bad, you should be able to explain why directly. Here are some quotes from the OpenAI charter: >We will attempt to directly build safe and beneficial AGI, but will also consider our mission fulfilled if our work aids others to achieve this outcome. >... >Our primary fiduciary duty is to humanity. >... >We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project. https://openai.com/charter https://openai.com/charter And here's a quote from the OP: >In October, Toner, who is director of strategy at a think tank in Washington, D.C., co-wrote a paper on AI safety. The paper said OpenAI’s launch of ChatGPT sparked a “sense of urgency inside major tech companies” that led them to fast-track AI products to keep up. It also said Anthropic, an OpenAI competitor, avoided “stoking the flames of AI hype” by waiting to release its chatbot. >After publication, Altman confronted Toner, saying she had harmed OpenAI by criticizing the company so publicly. Then he went behind her back, people familiar with the situation said. Who is doing a better job of upholding the charter in this situation: Altman, or Toner? The "people are upset" criticism essentially states that people became upset when Toner attempted to actually uphold the charter. To me, that says more about those people than it says about Toner.

jacquesm 3y ago