zlacker

Even if he isn’t critical to OpenAI’s future there is the issue of how the board handled this. They surprised everyone from their most significant investors to their employees, which would be justified if they have a very good reason. Without an excellent reason, all of this looks capricious and incompetent.

>>infose+(OP)
Thank you - this is one of the few reasonable takes I've seen on this whole mess. There is literally nothing Altman could have done that would justify the board having handled the situation in this way, and it makes them look grossly incompetent. Even if Altman had been engaged in some kind of criminal act, this is not the way in which you proceed. And regardless of whatever corporate structures you have in place, it is the height of naivete to think you can ignore the concerns of people who have written you a $10B check.

I do think this is a shame, because the structure had the potential to allow altruistic people to maintain some kind of governor on the commercial growth engine, but now that will be gone.

>>projec+Xd
> Even if Altman had been engaged in some kind of criminal act, this is not the way in which you proceed.

No information came to light to back this sudden and unexpected decisions but were there criminal acts involved, it certainly would not be unexpected. CEOs get instant fired for being under investigation for criminal acts all the time. But again, 48hs later it seems clear it was not the case

>>projec+Xd
I think he might have been caught fundraising for a new venture in AI, but separate from OpenAI. It would be a gray-area in many other companies but as CEO, reporting to a board where he has no seat, it would be cause.

>>projec+Xd
> Even if Altman had been engaged in some kind of criminal act, this is not the way in which you proceed.

Sometimes this is the _only_ way in which you proceed. If you gain knowledge of something truly egregious and don't eject the culprit you become immediately liable for any future malfeasance. Sometimes 'wow, gtfo right now' is the only safe course of action.

>>154573+OH
Unless Sam was using the AI to commit satanic sacrifices, it's hard to see what warrants expulsion at all, let alone immediate termination.

If they did have such a compelling reason to stuff their own reputation, they did a horrible job communicating it.

>>wddkcs+mS
> they did a horrible job communicating it

I think their communication is perfectly professional. You're just expecting some weird tell-all because that's how this sector weirdly chooses to operate, just blurting shit out on twitter then thinking about the consequences later.

The wording of their press release is wonderfully professional. Discreet, generic, succinct. That's how things should be done.

It's the other side that are acting oddly. Charging into the office and taking selfies, counting public oaths of fealty on twitter? V. weird.

>>154573+kT
It's true they were professional in their press releases, but they still didn't explicitly say the reason he was fired, and so people keep speculating.

>>154573+kT
Ilya's latest tweet speaks for itself. Nothing about this was professional -

"I deeply regret my participation in the board's actions. I never intended to harm OpenAI. I love everything we've built together and I will do everything I can to reunite the company."

https://twitter.com/ilyasut/status/1726590052392956028?t=DjA...