zlacker

[parent] [thread] 7 comments
1. davegu+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-17 21:32:32
"not significantly candid"

and

"no longer has confidence"

points to something more serious than underestimating costs.

replies(4): >>gjsman+w >>DebtDe+a1 >>paulpa+v3 >>ARandu+I5
2. gjsman+w[view] [source] 2023-11-17 21:34:15
>>davegu+(OP)
Other than costs or the allegations by the sister, "not significantly candid" could easily be short for, in my mind:

"not significantly candid in projections for profitability"

"not significantly candid in calculating operation cost increases"

"not significantly candid in how much subscribers are actually using ChatGPT"

etc.

3. DebtDe+a1[view] [source] 2023-11-17 21:36:44
>>davegu+(OP)
Not if the underestimation was to such a degree that it showed they could never even plausibly reach a break even point.
4. paulpa+v3[view] [source] 2023-11-17 21:46:36
>>davegu+(OP)
100% this. Firing your well-recognized and seemingly capable CEO means there's a fatal problem, or that he committed something so reprehensible that there was no option but to oust him immediately.

Maybe Sam had been trying to broker a sale of the company without consulting the board first? All speculation until more details are revealed but he must've done something of similar magnitude.

5. ARandu+I5[view] [source] 2023-11-17 21:58:26
>>davegu+(OP)
Underestimating costs could be the reasoning if Altman knew the costs would be higher then estimated, and didn't tell the board for an unreasonable amount of time. Burning through a ton of cash for months and not telling the board about it could be enough grounds for this sudden firing.

Of course we have no clue if that's what actually happened. Any conclusions made at this point are complete speculation, and we can't make any conclusions more specific then "this is probably bad news."

replies(1): >>jliptz+k7
◧◩
6. jliptz+k7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 22:08:29
>>ARandu+I5
That only makes sense if Altman is the only one with access to the company's financials which obviously can't be the case. No one else noticed truckloads of cash getting flushed down the toilet?
replies(2): >>ARandu+V9 >>maximu+d81
◧◩◪
7. ARandu+V9[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 22:23:08
>>jliptz+k7
It's certainly possible. Company financials can get very complicated very quickly, and it's possible that Altman was the only person (or one of a small number of people) who had the complete picture.

To be clear, this is only one possible explanation for Altman's firing. And for my money, I don't even think it's the most likely explanation. But right now, those who rely on OpenAI products should prepare for the worst, and this is one of the most existentially threatening possibilities.

◧◩◪
8. maximu+d81[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-18 04:12:55
>>jliptz+k7
I mean... he got fired so if that's what happened, they did notice.
[go to top]