There's speculation that Altman has been working on some other new development of his own, and kept this information secret. Thus the firing. Basic conflict of interest, and certainly would mean he wasn't open and forthright with the board.
Yes, I saw that. Apparently Altman was raising money for the AI hardware company. Even if it wasn't an OpenAI competitor, he cannot do both at once. If there was a conflict of interest, the OpenAI board should publicly say that was the reason clearly. If this was about AI Safety concerns, the board should say specifically the issues as well. I could imagine that if Altman pushed out the GPTs store without telling the board, its a clear sign of miscommunication. As it is, the board is too small, failed to communicate to investors, and blindsided many. They were too opaque, and in the vacuum, there is a lot of sympathy for Sam Altman, and it's in effect split the company. This doesn't look professional on either side either way. . Now they are talking about bringing Altman back, begging the question - if AI Safety was the concern for why he got canned, will that suffer if he is brought back?
Opaque, definitely. The board itself has a communication problem. Dropping a bombshell that no one saw coming, and then being coy about the reasons (both Altman and booting the Chair), suggests an incompetent board. They should have clearly stated why he was fired, and clearly stated why they got rid of the Chair.
The speculation above a backflip is bizarre. Are they going to backflip on both men, or only Sam?
AI safety sounds like an empty excuse. There's definitely something else going on. It's software, no one is risking life and limb building or getting into a rocket.
I hadn't read anything about hardware, that's interesting, became I don't understand what would have so special about the potential hardware. But if he was off raising capital for a pizza startup, the problem of deception woud be the same.
On the other hand, internal comms or directives that the board disagrees with isn't a sackable offense. That's a stern discussion, at most.
The prompt resignation of the other cofounder is almost invisible, it's all about Sam in the public coverage. I would have thought losing both is a major crisis,. The board created their own disaster. I don't think they're the right people to now fix it.
The Chair, who wasn't at the meeting to sack Altman, and boot him as Chair but kept him on as president of the company, has quit.
Interesting timesvwhen you lose two cofounders in as many days.
There's speculation that Altman has been working on some other new development of his own, and kept this information secret. Thus the firing. Basic conflict of interest, and certainly would mean he wasn't open and forthright with the board.
We'll see.
Yes, I saw that. Apparently Altman was raising money for the AI hardware company. Even if it wasn't an OpenAI competitor, he cannot do both at once. If there was a conflict of interest, the OpenAI board should publicly say that was the reason clearly. If this was about AI Safety concerns, the board should say specifically the issues as well. I could imagine that if Altman pushed out the GPTs store without telling the board, its a clear sign of miscommunication. As it is, the board is too small, failed to communicate to investors, and blindsided many. They were too opaque, and in the vacuum, there is a lot of sympathy for Sam Altman, and it's in effect split the company. This doesn't look professional on either side either way. . Now they are talking about bringing Altman back, begging the question - if AI Safety was the concern for why he got canned, will that suffer if he is brought back?
And now Sam is back again.
Pretty sure I lost a lot of synapses during the last five days. Lots.
🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤯🤯🤯
Opaque, definitely. The board itself has a communication problem. Dropping a bombshell that no one saw coming, and then being coy about the reasons (both Altman and booting the Chair), suggests an incompetent board. They should have clearly stated why he was fired, and clearly stated why they got rid of the Chair.
The speculation above a backflip is bizarre. Are they going to backflip on both men, or only Sam?
AI safety sounds like an empty excuse. There's definitely something else going on. It's software, no one is risking life and limb building or getting into a rocket.
I hadn't read anything about hardware, that's interesting, became I don't understand what would have so special about the potential hardware. But if he was off raising capital for a pizza startup, the problem of deception woud be the same.
On the other hand, internal comms or directives that the board disagrees with isn't a sackable offense. That's a stern discussion, at most.
The prompt resignation of the other cofounder is almost invisible, it's all about Sam in the public coverage. I would have thought losing both is a major crisis,. The board created their own disaster. I don't think they're the right people to now fix it.