It's "such a big deal" because he has been leading the company, and apparently some people really like how and they really don't like how it ended.
Why would it require any other explanation? Are you asking what leaders do and why an employee would care about what they do...?
This is like a bunch of people joining a basketball team where the coach starts turning it into a soccer team, and then the GM fires the coach for doing this and everyone calls the GM crazy and stupid. If you want to play soccer, go play soccer!
If you want to make a ton of money in a startup moving fast, how about don't setup a non-profit company spouting a bunch of humanitarian shit? It's even worse, because Altman very clearly did all this intentionally by playing the "I care about humanity card" just long enough while riding on the coattails of researchers where he could start up side processes to use his new AI profile to make the big bucks. But now people want to make him a martyr simply because the board called his bluff. It's bewildering.
Do you? Because that part is way more irritating, and, honestly, starting to read your original comment I thought that was where you were going with this: Why was he fired, exactly?
The way the statement was framed basically painted him a liar, in a way, so vague, that people put forth the most insane theories about why. I can sense some animosity, but do you really think it's okay to fire anyone in a way, where to the outside the possible explanation ranges from a big data slip to molesting their sister?
Nothing has changed. That is the part that needs transparency and its lack is bewildering.
For example, one scenario someone in a different thread conjectured is that Sam was secretly green-lighting the intentional (rather than incidental) collection of large amounts of copyrighted training data, exposing the firm to a great risk of a lawsuit from the media industry.
If he hid this from the board, “not being candid” would be the reason for his firing, but if the board admits that they know the details of the malfeasance, they could become entangled in the litigation.
His previous endeavor was YC partner, right? So a rich VC turning to a CEO. To make even more money. How original. If any prominent figure was to be credited here beyond Ilya S., well that would probably be Musk. Not S.A. who as a YC partner/whatever played Russian roulette with other rich folks' money all these years... As for MS hiring S.A., they are just doing the smart thing: if S.A. is indeed that awesome and everyone misses the "charisma", he'll pioneer AI and even become the next MS CEO... Or Satya Nadela will have his own "Windows Phone" moment with SamAI ;)
Wrong question. From the behavior of the board this weekend, it seems like the question is more "Do you understand how he was fired?".
IE: Immediately, on a Friday before Market close, before informing close partners (like Microsoft with 49% stake).
The "why" can be correct, but if the "how" is wrong that's even worse in some regards. It means that the board's thinking process is wrong and they'll likely make poor decisions in the future.
I don't know much about Sam Altman, but the behavior of the board was closer to a huge scandal. I was expecting news of some crazy misdeed of some kind, not just a simple misalignment with values.
Under these misalignment scenarios, you'd expect a stern talking to, and then a forced resignation over a few months. Not an immediate firing / removal. During this time, you'd inform Microsoft (and other partners) of the decision to get everyone on the same page, so it all elegantly resolves.
EDIT: And mind you, I don't even think the "why" has been well explained this weekend. That's part of the reason why "how" is important, to make sure the "why" gets explained clearly to everyone.
This is exactly it! Thanks for calling it out.
Sam Altman was just using the Researchers and their IP to enrich himself(and his select group of friends) while shafting everybody else including the researchers themselves.