zlacker

>>staran+(OP)
With Sam coming back as CEO, hasn't OpenAI board proven that it has lost its function? Regardless of who is in the board, they won't be able to exercise one of the most fundamental of their rights, firing the CEO, because Sam has proven that he is unfireable. Now, Sam can do however he pleases, whether it is lying, not reporting, etc. To be clear, I don't claim that Sam did, or will, lie, or misbehave.

>>laserl+gb
No that hasn't at all been the case. The board acted like the most incompetent group of individuals who've even handed any responsibility. If they went through due process, notified their employees and investors, and put out a statement of why they're firing the CEO instead of doing it over a 15 min Google meet and then going completely silent, none of this outrage would have taken place.

>>random+Yf
> The board acted like the most incompetent group of individuals who've even handed any responsibility.

This is overly dramatic, but I suppose that's par for this round.

> none of this outrage would have taken place.

Yeah... I highly doubt this, personally. I'm sure the outrage would have been similar, as HN's current favorite CEO was fired.

>>squigz+FE
Agreed. It's naive to think that an decision this unpopular somehow wouldn't have resulted in dissent and fracturing if only they had given it a better explanation and dotted more i's.

Imagine arguing this in another context: "Man, if only the Supreme Court had clearly articulated its reasoning in overturning Roe v Wade, there wouldn't have been all this outrage over it."

(I'm happy to accept that there's plenty of room for avoiding some of the damage, like the torrents of observers thinking "these board members clearly don't know what they're doing".)