zlacker

This, to me, seems like the most likely root cause: Sam was going too far into the "for profit" world, and lied to the board and misled them about his plans.

>>1024co+(OP)
But would that warrant outright firing him like this? No exit plan where they can give the appearance of leaving on good terms?

>>Wowfun+C1
To make an example out of him?

>>Wowfun+C1
That's a good point. The abruptness of the firing and calling him "not candid" aka lied in corporate speak. Means it's probably something with legal jeopardy.

>>airstr+J2
Why would they want to do that? That doesn't benefit anyone.

>>Wowfun+C1
The statement says. It would mean not just a misalignment on values but active deception regarding OpenAIs current direction.

The bit about “ability to fulfill duties” sticks out, considering the responsibility and duties of the nonprofit board… not to shareholders, but, ostensibly, to “humanity.”

>>airstr+J2
They clearly did it in a hurry, this is a “pants on fire” firing, not a difference of opinion over his leadership and direction.

>>zarzav+P7
I assume you mean ‘hair on fire,’ which suggests a move done in a panic. “Pants on fire” means the subject is lying.

>>aaronb+Mj
They fired him for lying. I think GP meant what they said, which is that what he was doing was blatantly lying, rather than whatever softer interpretation can be made for "not consistently candid in his communications".

>>Legibl+1n
Actually I did mix up “hair on fire” and “pants down”. Fortunately, “pants on fire” still works in context.

>>1024co+(OP)
Seems the most plausible and frankly ideal

>>zarzav+cq
Ok, but it fits so well with "liar, liar, pants on fire" and their reason for dismissal.