zlacker

>>medler+(OP)
He was outed for a reason. Why in the world would the board backtrack this? I think this is rumor mill reporting, trying to get things out too fast.

>>no_wiz+R3
> He was outed for a reason.

I've yet to see a good one. And even if: how you do something is often as important or even more important than that you do something. And on the 'how' bit the board just utterly failed. This is the most watched company in the world right now on the tech front, you can't just oust the CEO without a very good plan. If you do that kind of thing on a whim you are not fit to serve on the board of any company, but especially not on the board of this one.

>>jacque+Kj
Like mass soulless firings don’t happen?

Why aren’t we holding CEOs to the fire when they layoff thousands of people in what is effectively an email? Thats somehow okay but a CEO being ousted suddenly and it’s all hands on deck bad optics?

The board had a mandate level of votes for the replacement of Sam (2/3 of the board voted yes). Thats conviction.

>>no_wiz+Bl
They may have had the votes, but they didn't have the finesse and they may have forgotten who their ultimate paymasters are, regardless of the non-profit. Note that another 10 people or so have just as much power as the board (the key people behind all of the AI work) and three of those had already walked. That's a very powerful signal that they mis-handled this.

>>jacque+5m
3 out of 7, which is roughly a 1/3.

Which is to say, they were likely Altman supporters. Which is fine! They’re free to do as they wish.

However if that’s it (and it does remain to be seen if more happens or not) than 2/3 of folks stand by the decision, which would match with the board votes