• 31337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Official statement is that Altman was not being “candid” with the board. The current best theory I’ve seen is that Altman is investing in AI hardware startups (he is, in fact) and likely planning on having OpenAI doing business with them. buying them, or merging with them in the future.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, good read. I saw that “candid” comment as well, but didn’t think of a possible connection. That makes sense. Thanks

    • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      How embarrassing must it be for both sides if no one is willing to go public?
      If it were something illegal, they wouldn’t be holding back. Unless the board is somehow complicit by default.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah when I heard this, and after I read the available information, I was like did they walk in on him f****** a dog in his office or something? Like the secrecy around his dismissal is so total. But then all these people he has so much support within the company. Very confusing

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The boards job is to deliver shareholder value. Ergo, it may or may not be something illegal, all ypu can guarantee is that they think that revealing information might lose shareholder value.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They don’t have shareholders. Open AI is a nonprofit. So the job of the board is literally to do what is best for the organization, I can’t see how it could possibly be good for the organisation to fire the CEO and then point right refused to elaborators to the reason.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The board really needs to explain to the investors why he was fired, It is utterly ridiculous that they don’t know.

      He may very well have been fired for a reasonable reason, but I’m not seeing it because why would you just fire someone out of the blue and then not release a statement if you’ve got reasonable cause? The only reason to act like they’ve got something to hide is because they do have something to hide.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        If they had just fired him secretly it wouldn’t be so weird, but such open support from his co-workers and co-managers of the company and even other people resigning because of his firing are what is making me interested in the issue.

    • droopy4096@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ars posted that there’s some evidence to suggest board wanted to chase profit over ethics or somesuch. Altman apparently did not listen.

      • 5C5C5C@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You have that totally backwards.

        The board (which is the board of the non-profit) wanted the company to be more focused on its mission and less profit-driven. Altman is the one that’s been letting Microsoft get its tendrils around OpenAI and push a narrative that everything must be closed off and profit focused.

      • there1snospoon@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I thought it was the reverse, and Altman wanted to push forward recklessly while the board wanted to hew closer to ethical guidelines?