zlacker

>>davidb+(OP)
- Cant be a personal scandal, press release would be worded much more differently

- Board is mostly independent and those independent dont have equity

- They talk about not being candid - this is legalese for “lying”

The only major thing that could warrant something like this is Sam going behind the boards back to make a decision (or make progress on a decision) that is misaligned with the Charter. Thats the only fireable offense that warrants this language.

My bet: Sam initiated some commercial agreement (like a sale) to an entity that would have violated the “open” nature of the company. Likely he pursued a sale to Microsoft without the board knowing.

>>baidif+aq
Turn that on it’s head - was he standing in the way of a commercial sale or agreement with Microsoft!

He may not be the villain.

But who knows, it feels like an episode of silicon valley!

>>PDSCod+ww
If you look at who is on the board, how it's structured (they don't have equity right?), it seems like it's actually because he violated the charter. Why would Ilya Sutskever punish Sam for doing the right thing wrt AI safety?

>>jablon+6C
They are in a strange position.

They had an open ethos and then went quasi closed for profit and then a behemoth has betted the family jewels on their products.

Harking on about the dangers of those products does not help the share price!

My money is on a power play at the top tables.

Embrace, extend, and exterminate.

Playbook!

>>PDSCod+uE
Quasi-closed is an understatement. You could almost sue them for false advertising.