zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. alisto+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-18 02:10:21
If it was really just about seeing eye to eye, why would the press release say anything about Sam being "consistently candid in his communications?" That seems pretty unnecessary if it were fundamentally a philosophical disagreement. Why not instead say something about differences in forward looking vision?
replies(1): >>notaha+hh1
2. notaha+hh1[view] [source] 2023-11-18 12:58:12
>>alisto+(OP)
Which they can do in a super polite "wish him all the best" way or an "it was necessary to remove Sam's vision to save the world from unfriendly AI" way as they see fit. Unlike an accusation of lying, this isn't something that you can be sued for, and provided you're clear about what your boardroom battle-winning vision is it probably spooks stakeholders less than an insinuation that Sam might have been covering up something really bad with no further context.
[go to top]