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
I'm confused. It's usually the other way around; the good guy is ousted because he is hindering the company's pursuit of profit.

>>wheele+y52
In this case, the company is a non-profit, so it is indeed the other way around

>>airstr+ul2
OpenAI has been for profit since 2019.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#2019:_Transition_from_n...