zlacker

>>convex+(OP)
So what was he lying about that got the board so pissed? A story that fits is that they assumed/knew that he had different goals and/or was going to create a spinoff.

If they waited for the GPT5 pretraining to finish and then they minimized the cost of the loss of Altman and the engineers.

The whole secrecy, compartmentalization and urgency of their actions could only be explained by being against a wall. Otherwise if it was about ethics, future plans or whatever political it would happen at a slower pace.

Hope they involved their investors beforehand but I don't know if they had time, OpenAI probably still exists and evolves on other people's money. But what else could they do?

>>antman+kd
I don't think the firing would be this dramatic if it was merely lying to the board; I suspect it's something where:

- he makes misleading statement to board

- board puts this in regulatory filing (e.g. SEC)

- board finds out this is a legally critical statement

- they _have_ to fire him in order to avoid becoming accomplices.

The reverse of the other Sam situation.

>>pjc50+Pp
Yeah this feels like a possible white collar crime. And with the US government out for blood right now about tech abuses, even a minor tax audit wouldn't be good for them.