zlacker

>>apsec1+(OP)
Sutskever: "You can call it (a coup), and I can understand why you chose this word, but I disagree with this. This was the board doing its duty to the mission of the nonprofit, which is to make sure that OpenAI builds AGI that benefits all of humanity."

Scoop: theinformation.com

https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1725707548106580255

>>convex+X1
Very unprofessional way to approach this disagreement.

>>peyton+G3
How so? It's just another firing and being escorted out the door.

>>anonym+24
The wording is very clearly hostile and aggressive, especially for a formal statement, and the wording, again, makes it very clear that they are burning all bridges with Sam Altman, and it is very clear that 1. it was done extremely suddenly, 2. with very little notice or discussion with any other stakeholder (e.g. Microsoft being completely blindsided, not even waiting 30 minutes for the stock market to close, doing this shortly before Thanksgiving break, etc).

You don't really see any of this in most professional settings.

>>janeje+O4
boards give reasons for transparency, and they said he had not been fully candid.

You are interpreting that as hostile and aggressive because you are reading into it what other boards have said in other disputes and whatever you are imagining, but if the board learned some things not from Altman that it felt they should have learned from Altman, less than candid is a completely neutral way to describe it, and voting him out is not an indication of hostility.

Would you like to propose some other candid wording the board could have chosen, a wording that does not lack candor?

>>fsckbo+I6
> You are interpreting that as hostile and aggressive because you are reading into it

Uhh no, I'm seeing it as hostile and aggressive because the actual verbiage was hostile and aggressive, doubly so in the context of this being a formal corporate statement. You can pass the text into NLP sentiment analyzer and it too will come to the same conclusion.

It is also very telling that you are being very sarcastic and demeaning in your remarks as well to someone who wasn't even replying to you, which might explain why you might have seen the PR statement differently.

>>janeje+r7
When you look at the written word and find yourself consistently imputing clear intent which is hostile, aggressive, sarcastic, and demeaning which no one else but you sees, a thoughtful person would begin to introspect.

>>racket+Mw
Again, I'm not sure why you and the other person are just out for blood and keep trying to make it personal, but you can clearly feed it into NLP/ChatGPT and co and even the machines will tell you the actual wordings are aggressive.

>>janeje+n51
I'll bite. I even led the witness on this one by outright asking if it's aggressive.

> "a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities."

> The provided text is not explicitly aggressive; however, it conveys a critical tone regarding the individual's communication, emphasizing hindrance to the board's responsibilities.

Did you actually run this through GPT...or did you poll Reddit?