3 ms·

>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

>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?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Is an attempt to manipulate the other board members into firing another board member reason enough to be fired? No, but lying to Board members about what other Board members have said is. The employee equivalent would be lying to one member of the C-suite about what another had said.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  > Is an attempt to manipulate the other board members into firing one board member reason enough to be fired? Yes. He's not a teenage girl, he's the CEO of a nonprofit. At his level this is fraudulent misrepresentation.
- rendang 3y ago
  The board should have shared those specific details with their initial announcement. Might not have been enough to win over the employees/stakeholders, but they'd have a much better chance that way than how things actually played out
- user_named 3y ago
  There were no notes.
  - PhysicsOfCivics 3y ago
    But there were plenty of lawyers on all sides with some threatening to sue anyone who said a bad word about Altman regardless of the truth. A threat can be exactly worded or implied. The rack up debt and fail on mediocre idea and then sell your only valuable resource, your human employees Plan gave him a lot of money to hire a lot of law school grads who have since made partner.
pdonis 3y ago
> Altman tried to get her fired, so she retaliated I don't think it's that simple. First, after confronting Toner directly and getting a response he didn't like, Altman went behind her back to the other board members trying to get her fired. That's not what a responsible CEO does. A responsible CEO, if he does not agree with the position taken by one Board member, brings that concern openly to the rest of the Board in a formal setting. He doesn't go behind the one Board member's back. If Altman really believed Toner's actions had harmed the company, his responsibility as a CEO was to bring that concern openly to the Board and let them make the call openly. And that's especially true for a company that, according to Altman's own public claims, has stewardship of a technology that could be an existential threat to humans. That makes any behind-the-scenes maneuvering on his part even more of a problem. Second, according to the article, other Board members had concerns about Altman's honesty, and not just due to whatever transpired during Altman's behind-the-back attempts to get Toner fired. So it's not just that particular incident that's relevant here. That's not to say that the Board didn't make mistakes. I agree with other posters that they should have seen the consequences coming for firing Altman. It also appears, from the fact that the lawyer's advice about fiduciary duty came after they fired Altman, that they didn't seek legal advice before doing that, which seems like an obvious mistake. (It's possible, though, that they did ask the lawyer beforehand and he didn't raise the possibility of a backlash and consequent damage to the company, which would put at least some of the blame on him.) I just don't think that because the Board messed up, that makes Altman the good guy. I don't think any of these people come out of this looking good. Certainly I don't have confidence in any of them as stewards of AI if AI is really as big a deal as they think it is.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  > brings that concern openly to the rest of the Board in a formal setting Yes and no. Meetings are a terrible way to drive toward decisions but a great way to signal positions to others. Or "decision meetings" bad; "consensus meetings" good. If you're driving one of those, you should know how everyone involved feels before they meet. You should lobby any of them beforehand if necessary. The idea is to try to make sure you have buy-in before everyone shows up - no drag-out arguments, no rabbit trails, just statements of their positions and a thumbs up. And Altman seems to know that, given his behavior.

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?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Is an attempt to manipulate the other board members into firing another board member reason enough to be fired? No, but lying to Board members about what other Board members have said is. The employee equivalent would be lying to one member of the C-suite about what another had said.
jstarfish 3y ago
> Is an attempt to manipulate the other board members into firing one board member reason enough to be fired? Yes. He's not a teenage girl, he's the CEO of a nonprofit. At his level this is fraudulent misrepresentation.
rendang 3y ago
The board should have shared those specific details with their initial announcement. Might not have been enough to win over the employees/stakeholders, but they'd have a much better chance that way than how things actually played out
user_named 3y ago
There were no notes.
- PhysicsOfCivics 3y ago
  But there were plenty of lawyers on all sides with some threatening to sue anyone who said a bad word about Altman regardless of the truth. A threat can be exactly worded or implied. The rack up debt and fail on mediocre idea and then sell your only valuable resource, your human employees Plan gave him a lot of money to hire a lot of law school grads who have since made partner.

pdonis 3y ago

> Altman tried to get her fired, so she retaliated I don't think it's that simple. First, after confronting Toner directly and getting a response he didn't like, Altman went behind her back to the other board members trying to get her fired. That's not what a responsible CEO does. A responsible CEO, if he does not agree with the position taken by one Board member, brings that concern openly to the rest of the Board in a formal setting. He doesn't go behind the one Board member's back. If Altman really believed Toner's actions had harmed the company, his responsibility as a CEO was to bring that concern openly to the Board and let them make the call openly. And that's especially true for a company that, according to Altman's own public claims, has stewardship of a technology that could be an existential threat to humans. That makes any behind-the-scenes maneuvering on his part even more of a problem. Second, according to the article, other Board members had concerns about Altman's honesty, and not just due to whatever transpired during Altman's behind-the-back attempts to get Toner fired. So it's not just that particular incident that's relevant here. That's not to say that the Board didn't make mistakes. I agree with other posters that they should have seen the consequences coming for firing Altman. It also appears, from the fact that the lawyer's advice about fiduciary duty came after they fired Altman, that they didn't seek legal advice before doing that, which seems like an obvious mistake. (It's possible, though, that they did ask the lawyer beforehand and he didn't raise the possibility of a backlash and consequent damage to the company, which would put at least some of the blame on him.) I just don't think that because the Board messed up, that makes Altman the good guy. I don't think any of these people come out of this looking good. Certainly I don't have confidence in any of them as stewards of AI if AI is really as big a deal as they think it is.

drewcoo 3y ago
> brings that concern openly to the rest of the Board in a formal setting Yes and no. Meetings are a terrible way to drive toward decisions but a great way to signal positions to others. Or "decision meetings" bad; "consensus meetings" good. If you're driving one of those, you should know how everyone involved feels before they meet. You should lobby any of them beforehand if necessary. The idea is to try to make sure you have buy-in before everyone shows up - no drag-out arguments, no rabbit trails, just statements of their positions and a thumbs up. And Altman seems to know that, given his behavior.