4 ms·
pg disputing the narrative that Sam was forced out for being dishonest is totally valid, there is just some real interesting language parsing here to rule this
by piker 2y ago
pg disputing the narrative that Sam was forced out for being dishonest is totally valid, there is just some real interesting language parsing here to rule this not a “firing”. He lost employment at his employer’s behest and it wasn’t a layoff.
- consp 2y ago> pg disputing the narrative that Sam was forced out for being dishonest Yet he doesn't do that (in this tweet) as it's only an alternative reason and does not address those accusations.
- cies 2y agoI think Sam has amassed a net worth enough to live comfortably not having to work another day in his life. To me that changes the meaning of "fired". I'd read it as "co-entrepeneurs parting ways". Yes one of the co-entrepeneurs has more say in who stays and who goes. But even if there was an employment contract, I'd see it more as a good/bad leave clause when no body loses their much required primary source of income.
- cma 2y agoWouldn't the same be true of him getting fired from OpenAI then? He was never fired since he was independently wealthy?
- cies 2y agoI'm not saying he's technically fired or not (i think "fired" is a term with a law-definition). I'm saying that he prolly has a deal at OpenAI with some stock and a good/bad leaver agreement, and a salary. Getting fired in this cases is not the same as firing someone who has zero stock and needs the jobs to put food on the table. It just does not carry the same weight for me, regardless of the lawful definition.