zlacker

>>himara+(OP)
> With his firing from OpenAI, Altman quickly got the upper hand in terms of public messaging. The board didn’t use a communications or law firm in its dealings, people familiar with the board said, expecting that the OpenAI team would help them. But Altman had loyalty from investors and employees.

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-leadership-hangs-in-balan...

>>himara+rC
The loyalty was significant. The PR was meh

>>pauldd+CP
It was, but still: perception matters and Sam has - contrary to the board - not made many wrong moves since this whole thing started. Note that this is all extremely rapidly developing and it's very hard to do all of this on the fly when you don't expect to even be in this situation and not miss a beat.

The board however has only made things ever more murky with their vague and fig-leaf like defenses. They appear utterly unprepared to deal with the aftermath of their own action, which they and only they knew was coming.

>>jacque+le1
If they had said "Sam has helped OpenAI tremendously over the years, and we thank him for his invaluable contributions. Going forward, he will be using his skill set to pursue other opportunities, while OpenAI continues its mission to advance AI for the betterment of humanity."

That would at least made it seem like they knew what they were doing.

But investors would have still beaten them over the head.

>>pauldd+Fi1
Yes, that's true. But that's exactly the kind of thing that would have at least given it a semblance of being an orderly decision and it would have stopped a ton of negative press in its tracks.

It's like a dance, you can't just go do the Polka if everybody expects a Waltz, that's going to attract a ton of attention. They should have gotten out in front of any potential blowback to ensure that even if their decision was by the book (which for their sake I hope it was) that it also didn't ruffle the scales of very large dragons.