3 ms·

"We are disappointed that Ms. Toner continues to revisit these issues. An independent committee of the board worked with the law firm Wilmer Hale, to conduct an

"We are disappointed that Ms. Toner continues to revisit these issues. An independent committee of the board worked with the law firm Wilmer Hale, to conduct an extensive review of the events of November." It's interesting that the review was never published and no comments from the review were mentioned. The "summary" here[1] only reveals a list of things they did and the least possible endorsement of Altman. "WilmerHale found that the prior Board acted within its broad discretion to terminate Mr. Altman, but also found that his conduct did not mandate removal." I find it telling that they did not release the actual report. [1] https://openai.com/index/review-completed-altman-brockman-to-continue-to-lead-openai/ https://openai.com/index/review-completed-altman-brockman-to...

ssgodderidge 2y ago
> “his conduct did not mandate removal.” Curious what “mandate” refers to here. He didn’t do anything illegal? Didn’t break bylaws? Or was it that he didn’t do anything to lose the trust? He could have done everything well within his right as the CEO, but still gotten fired for failure to build trust with the board
ben_w 2y ago
> I find it telling that they did not release the actual report. Without opining on the merits of the case: lawyers on the job aren't known for saying more than they have to, nor for advising their clients to do so either.
light_hue_1 2y ago
Don't worry. It wouldn't matter if they released the report. These law firms are charged to find nothing and say nothing. MIT agreed to have a report from a law firm after having secret dealings with Epstein. The law firm very carefully managed to avoid every issue that wasn't already known and every question people actually wanted answers to.
- andy_ppp 2y ago
  It’s like one of those logic problems isn’t it; if what you say is true (and it likely is) then why hasn’t the report been released? It likely contains information that even at the fantastic fees WilmerHale charge couldn’t be skirt around.

ssgodderidge 2y ago

> “his conduct did not mandate removal.” Curious what “mandate” refers to here. He didn’t do anything illegal? Didn’t break bylaws? Or was it that he didn’t do anything to lose the trust? He could have done everything well within his right as the CEO, but still gotten fired for failure to build trust with the board

ben_w 2y ago

> I find it telling that they did not release the actual report. Without opining on the merits of the case: lawyers on the job aren't known for saying more than they have to, nor for advising their clients to do so either.

light_hue_1 2y ago

Don't worry. It wouldn't matter if they released the report. These law firms are charged to find nothing and say nothing. MIT agreed to have a report from a law firm after having secret dealings with Epstein. The law firm very carefully managed to avoid every issue that wasn't already known and every question people actually wanted answers to.

andy_ppp 2y ago
It’s like one of those logic problems isn’t it; if what you say is true (and it likely is) then why hasn’t the report been released? It likely contains information that even at the fantastic fees WilmerHale charge couldn’t be skirt around.