zlacker

It appears the reporting was accurate: Ilya staged a coup.

Notably, Sam/Greg do not guess or insinuate why he did a coup.

>>minima+(OP)
Apparently due to Sam's ego and wanting to use OpenAI to achieve a Musk-like cult status: https://old.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/17xoact/sam_altman_...

>>adamde+x
Source: trust me bro, I'm a random reddit user.

>>minima+(OP)
This is too incomplete to reach any conclusions. The board made claims about a specific class of activity. They may or may not have been more specific in their conversations with Sam and Greg. Either way the credibility accusation needs more than just a timeline to refute it.

Maybe it was a coup as per some reporting; maybe it wasn’t. I’m reluctant to make a decision here based on who got to the reporters first. There is some asymmetry in media savvy between Sam and the board.

>>lannis+D
It's harder to tell now, but from a timeline of events, that supposed OpenAI insider on Reddit had key details of the 'palace coup' that reputable journalists like Kara Swisher (and now a primary source of Greg Brockman) have largely confirmed.

I think the Reddit user is legitimate.

>>lannis+D
I mean Ilya said it himself in a roundabout way https://twitter.com/ilyasut/status/1707752576077176907

>>throwa+J1
No that's horseshit since it does not constitute a valid legal reason for his removal nor it's inline with their blog post. They would get sued out of their a* if they acted based on this.

>>throwa+J1
unfortunately, that is also how reddit roleplay works too.

>>Bryant+j1
I’m with you on this. OpenAI’s board publicly stated that Sam Altman had lied to them, and that they no longer have confidence in his ability to continue leading the company. I find it really hard to believe they just made that up. They could have just said that they lost confidence in Sam’s leadership. But they also said he had lied to them. And that’s a big deal.

This just happened. We don’t have all the facts.

>>s1arti+44
front-running scoops from journalists?

>>trogdo+P4
Yes. It’s also true that the board made decisions I would not expect from a competent board, like not giving any investors a heads up about this.

One thing we’ll know by tomorrow morning: was Swisher right when she said there’d be more top level resignations? That will tell us a certain amount about her credibility/sources.

(Also, obviously, my opinion about any of this is worth what you pay for it.)

>>himara+W4
yeah, often times that is the case. Because reddit is antonymous and free, people can and do make all kinds of claims, some of which come true. If you have 500 people making up different claims, it is likely that one of them will come true, even if that person was guessing/lying.

Im not saying that real leaks dont happen, but that pre-running the news is really weak evidence the on reddit, unless the claims are incredibly specific.

I dont think there was anything they said on reddit that was very specific, and several posters in the HN thread speculating the same thing, just without claiming to be "in the room".

It is kind of like publishing multiple weather predictions, and then claiming credit for the one that is correct.

>>s1arti+9a
The consistent detail about the store breaking the camel's back sounds rather specific. I guess time will tell whether more claims by this user hold up.

>>himara+La
>I guess time will tell whether more claims by this user hold up.

Thats the point, it doesnt matter if they do or dont.

If you read through their post history, they have a comment or sentence for almost every possible reason:

Difference in vision

forcing development to fast

Didn't listen to safety concerns

Lying about finances

Making deals without the board

Hiding financial matters.

It is like someone is rattling off the top 10 guesses for the reason from HN or predication markets.

Now if they said something like Ilya Sutskever called Sam at 1215 on hangouts to tell him, That would be a be pretty solid proof.

>>s1arti+Ea1
The user just made some new comments that lack credibility. I think that seals whatever doubts I had.

>>minima+(OP)
You’re taking the word of the fired verbatim on Twitter? There are multiple sides to every story. For legal reasons, the board may never give exact details.

>>himara+bk1
yeah, the new comments look like more of the same to me. A lot of not-so-subtle self aggrandizement, vague claims, and of course a "big secret" that they cant share.

They could still be some kind of insider, but they never added any new information beyond what was publicly speculated, and clearly have an axe to grind.

There is something about reddit that just attracts and promotes a lot of juvenile attention seeking behavior. My default assumption is that content is fictional unless it passes a pretty high bar.

>>Bryant+96
Apparently, an internal memo at OpenAI states that Sam was not fired for malfeasance.

Unbelievable.

See https://www.axios.com/2023/11/18/openai-memo-altman-firing-m...