3 ms·

I mean sure... if you redefine Sam as not an employee then you can definitely argue he wasn't fired. Also, you seem to imply that OpenAI decided to start a non-

I mean sure... if you redefine Sam as not an employee then you can definitely argue he wasn't fired. Also, you seem to imply that OpenAI decided to start a non-from profit but.. isn't that just... Sam? Like Sam was running the non-for-profit, Sam decided to start a for-profit part of it -and from what we know of what went on at OpenAI it seems like Sam was the one driving that. So you're presenting this as if this was thrust upon Sam, but so far all we've seen seems to indicate the exact opposite, that all the way along Sam has been the one driving this. To be clear, I'm not saying he was fired. I'm saying he acted unethically, pushed PG to the point where he gave an ultimatum and then quit, but PG is smart enough not to burn bridges.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> if you redefine Sam as not an employee then you can definitely argue he wasn't fired No, I'm saying the "reigning in" was a personal one, not an employee one. Obviously Sam was an employee. > So you're presenting this as if this was thrust upon Sam No, I'm not. I'm saying he didn't go and find another job. His role changed with OpenAI's structure change, and he probably didn't think it through as to him it was a gradual transition. > I'm saying he acted unethically, pushed PG to the point where he gave an ultimatum and then quit, but PG is smart enough not to burn bridges. Okay. At this point we're just doing celebrity gossip, but with tech celebrities. I've no idea if your guess is correct or not.