zlacker

>>davidb+(OP)
From NYT article [1] and Greg's tweet [2]

"In a post to X Friday evening, Mr. Brockman said that he and Mr. Altman had no warning of the board’s decision. “Sam and I are shocked and saddened by what the board did today,” he wrote. “We too are still trying to figure out exactly what happened.”

Mr. Altman was asked to join a video meeting with the board at noon on Friday and was immediately fired, according to Mr. Brockman. Mr. Brockman said that even though he was the chairman of the board, he was not part of this board meeting.

He said that the board informed him of Mr. Altman’s ouster minutes later. Around the same time, the board published a blog post."

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/technology/openai-sam-alt...

[2] https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1725736242137182594

>>gordon+LA1
So they didn't even give Altman a chance to defend himself for supposedly lying (inconsistent candour as they put it.) Wow.

>>cedws+xC1
Another source [1] claims: "A knowledgeable source said the board struggle reflected a cultural clash at the organization, with Altman and Brockman focused on commercialization and Sutskever and his allies focused on the original non-profit mission of OpenAI."

[1] - https://sfstandard.com/2023/11/17/openai-sam-altman-firing-b...

>>somena+HF1
What a hypocritical board, firing them after massive commercial success!

Classic virtue signalling for the sake of personal power gains as so often.

>>jdthed+3d2
What’s hypocritical about a non-profit firing a leader who wanted lots of profits.

>>CPLX+wd2
Didn't think I'd need to explain this:

The hypocritical part is doing so right AFTER beginning to take off commercially.

An honorable board with backbone would have done so at the first inkling of commercialization instead (which would have been 1-2 years ago).

Maybe you can find a better word for me but the point should be easily gotten ...