zlacker

This doesn't make any sense. If it was a disagreement, they could have gone the "quiet" route and just made no substantive comment in the press release. But they made accusations that are specific enough to be legally enforceable if they're wrong, and in an official statement no less.

If their case isn't 100% rock solid, they just handed Sam a lawsuit that he's virtually guaranteed to win.

>>eslaug+(OP)
I agree. None of this adds up. The only thing that makes any sense, given OpenAI has any sense and self interest at all, is that the reason they let Altman go may have even been bigger than even what they were saying, and that there was some lack of candor in his communications with the board. Otherwise, you don't make an announcement like that 30 minutes before markets close on a Friday.

>>eslaug+(OP)
Even if their case is 100% solid, they wouldn't have said it publically. Unless they hated Sam for doing something, so it's not just direction of the company or something like that. It's something bigger.

>>eslaug+(OP)
I doubt that a quite route is possible on that matter.

So better be the first to set the narrative.

>>eslaug+(OP)
I mean I think it would be pretty hard to prove that you weren't at any time "less than candid" in reports to a board.