zlacker

boards give reasons for transparency, and they said he had not been fully candid.

You are interpreting that as hostile and aggressive because you are reading into it what other boards have said in other disputes and whatever you are imagining, but if the board learned some things not from Altman that it felt they should have learned from Altman, less than candid is a completely neutral way to describe it, and voting him out is not an indication of hostility.

Would you like to propose some other candid wording the board could have chosen, a wording that does not lack candor?

>>fsckbo+(OP)
> You are interpreting that as hostile and aggressive because you are reading into it

Uhh no, I'm seeing it as hostile and aggressive because the actual verbiage was hostile and aggressive, doubly so in the context of this being a formal corporate statement. You can pass the text into NLP sentiment analyzer and it too will come to the same conclusion.

It is also very telling that you are being very sarcastic and demeaning in your remarks as well to someone who wasn't even replying to you, which might explain why you might have seen the PR statement differently.

>>janeje+J
When you look at the written word and find yourself consistently imputing clear intent which is hostile, aggressive, sarcastic, and demeaning which no one else but you sees, a thoughtful person would begin to introspect.

>>racket+4q
Again, I'm not sure why you and the other person are just out for blood and keep trying to make it personal, but you can clearly feed it into NLP/ChatGPT and co and even the machines will tell you the actual wordings are aggressive.

>>janeje+FY
I'll bite. I even led the witness on this one by outright asking if it's aggressive.

> "a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities."

> The provided text is not explicitly aggressive; however, it conveys a critical tone regarding the individual's communication, emphasizing hindrance to the board's responsibilities.

Did you actually run this through GPT...or did you poll Reddit?

>>jstarf+vV1
Context matters. It's hyper aggressive by the standards of similar communications (press releases announcing management shakeups) by similar entities (boards of directors).

Obviously it's not aggressive by the standards of everyday political drama or Internet forum arguments.

>>Camper+0n2
A text being objectively measurable as aggressive is a very different supposition than a text being subjectively, contextually aggressive.

It's fair to say that usually if the board isn't obfuscating or outright lying in their announcements, that itself is an indicator of acrimony.

But usually, the board can financially incentivize a CEO to "step down" or even help them find a soft landing at another company to make it look like a mutually agreed on transition. Since they know this oustered CEO isn't interested in making nice in public, they really had no choice but to try to get in front of the story.

Given the fallout which is still spreading, I think they would've rather cut him a fat check for an explicit or implicit NDA and thanked him for his amazing contributions while wishing him well on his future endeavors if that option had been on the table.