zlacker

I've only seen support for Altman from the press. (guess who spends ads on the press and has more political connections)

The board was naive, to say the least.

>>alecco+(OP)
Well, he is basically the face of OpenAI and ChatGPT and the whole AI push. And at the same time he is not unlikable either.

>>chucke+O4
Which is unusual since it's been around since 1956:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_artificial_intellig...

"The field of AI research was founded at a workshop held on the campus of Dartmouth College, USA during the summer of 1956."

>>alecco+(OP)
The Bloomberg article about Altman seeking funding for a conflicting venture seems like a plant by the other side:

https://archive.is/3LaJF

>>nostra+Od
That also sounds like a plant from Altman's side.

This is the most important quote: "We can say definitively that the board’s decision was not made in response to malfeasance or anything related to our financial, business, safety, or security/privacy practices. This was a breakdown in communication between Sam and the board."

If it were a plant by the other camp how would this make it there? Also the whole article sounds like "You don't want him as a CEO? He is going to get sooo much money, and going to out compete you sooo hard. He is already in talks for his new venture." Which is obviously what Sam's side would like to project.