zlacker

The legal risk comes if Altman decides he wants a similar job and can't find it over the next few months or years, and has reason to believe that OpenAI's statements tainted his reputation.

OpenAI's board's press release could very easily be construed as "Sam Altman is not trustworthy as a CEO", which could lead to his reputation being sullied among other possible employers. He could argue that the board defamed his reputation and kept him from what was otherwise a very promising career in an unfathomably lucrative field.

>>lenerd+(OP)
It’s not defamation if it’s true

>>edgyqu+Y1
Truth is subjective and if there is anything that could suggest other motive, as I said earlier, it would be open to interpretation by a jury.

Really they should have just said something to the effect of, "The board has voted to end Sam Altman's tenure as CEO at OpenAI. We wish him the best in his future endeavors."

>>edgyqu+Y1
The onus is on OpenAI to prove that in a court of law, in front of a jury.

>>adastr+Pb
No, the onus would be on Sam Altman to prove that the statement was materially false, AND intended to slander him, AND actually succeeded in affecting his reputation.

When you're a public person, the bar for winning a defamation case is very high.

>>lenerd+Y4
Meh, they don't need to prove that much. It would be Altman that had to prove a lot, because the law favors defendant in this situation. To protect the speech, actually.

>>tsimio+df
I don't know. The board statement, peeling away the pleasantries, says he lied to the board repeatedly. That's a very serious accusation. I don't know how US law works here, but in the UK you can sue and win over defamation for far milder infractions.

>>rich_s+kx
Even in the UK, if you sue, it is on you to prove that you didn't lie, not on the person you're sueing to prove that you did.

Also, as long as you are a public person, defamation has a very high bar in the USA. It is not enough to for the statement to be false, you have to actually prove that the person you're accusing of defamation knew it was false and intended it to hurt you.

Note that this is different from an accusation of perjury. They did not accuse Sam Altman of performing illegal acts. If they had, things would have been very different. As it stands, they simply said that he hasn't been truthful to them, which it would be very hard to prove is false.

>>tsimio+HF
In a specific case, perhaps. But surely, I can't go out, make a broad statement like, "XYZ is a liar and fornicator" and leave it there. And how would XYZ go around proving they are not a liar and fornicator? Talk to everyone in the world and get them to confirm they were not lied to or sexually involved?

Surely, at some level, you can be sued for making unfounded remarks. But then IANAL so, meh.

>>tsimio+HF
> Even in the UK, if you sue, it is on you to prove that you didn't lie, not on the person you're sueing to prove that you did.

No, in the UK it's unambiguously the other way round. The complainant simply has to persuade the court that the statement seriously harmed or is likely to seriously harm their reputation. Truth is a defence but for that defence to prevail the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that it was true (or to mount an "honest opinion" defence on the basis that both the statement would reasonably be understood as one of opinion rather than fact and that they did honestly hold that opinion)