I'm actually underwhelmed that this is all that discovery turned up in this case. Like, we still don't even have the actual reason for Altman's firing. Just a bunch of people who didn't "trust" him or felt he was "candid." What die he actually do? How did he mislead the board? What were these so-called "crisis" events? What did he consistently lie about? Who did he undermine and why? Was all this just based on the emotional state of a few guys who barely talk to each other? All of this sounds more like a high school girls clique than a hundred billion dollar company board ran by adults.
Nadella's "amateur city" testimony seems to be the best summary we'll get: A bunch of people with waaay to much money and power and no clue what they are doing. If this case shows anything, it's that the industry needs to be regulated heavily.
Narcissistic abuse usually happens in a way that the victim cannot point at one event to prove the abuse
It's usually a context dependant aggregation of actions
Like a vampire taking thousands of bites the vampire hides the bites by refusing to be accountable and biting just enough to be under the tolerance of the victim
It's a bit vague as to why but they produced a document
>The Altman document consisted of dozens of examples of his alleged lies and other toxic behavior, largely backed up by screenshots from Murati’s Slack channel. In one of them, Altman had told Murati that the company’s legal department had said that GPT-4 Turbo didn’t need to go through the joint safety board review. When Murati checked with the company’s top lawyer, he said he had not said that.
I guess you can fire someone for lying and toxic behaviour?
It seems to have come to a head a bit over board member Helen Toner criticizing OpenAI's approach to safety. Altman I think wanted her gone and she wanted him gone hence the battle. I guess the employees and investors figured they wanted to be rich and could put up with the lying and toxic behaviour.
One of the few powers of the board is to fire the CEO. I do not see why there is any need for codified reasons. If the board thinks the CEO should do better, that is all that matters.
The CEO can be drunk, liar, cheat, steal, and be incompetent only as long as the board thinks it is ok.
“In his presence, reality is malleable. He can convince anyone of practically anything. It wears off when he’s not around, but it makes it hard to have realistic schedules.”
I'm actually underwhelmed that this is all that discovery turned up in this case. Like, we still don't even have the actual reason for Altman's firing. Just a bunch of people who didn't "trust" him or felt he was "candid." What die he actually do? How did he mislead the board? What were these so-called "crisis" events? What did he consistently lie about? Who did he undermine and why? Was all this just based on the emotional state of a few guys who barely talk to each other? All of this sounds more like a high school girls clique than a hundred billion dollar company board ran by adults.
Nadella's "amateur city" testimony seems to be the best summary we'll get: A bunch of people with waaay to much money and power and no clue what they are doing. If this case shows anything, it's that the industry needs to be regulated heavily.
Narcissistic abuse usually happens in a way that the victim cannot point at one event to prove the abuse It's usually a context dependant aggregation of actions
Like a vampire taking thousands of bites the vampire hides the bites by refusing to be accountable and biting just enough to be under the tolerance of the victim
He has functionally nobody to stop him whatever he decides to do now, minus maybe Trump only because he has a bigger megaphone.
Corporate “governance” is the biggest joke ever - this is middle school logic.
It's a bit vague as to why but they produced a document
>The Altman document consisted of dozens of examples of his alleged lies and other toxic behavior, largely backed up by screenshots from Murati’s Slack channel. In one of them, Altman had told Murati that the company’s legal department had said that GPT-4 Turbo didn’t need to go through the joint safety board review. When Murati checked with the company’s top lawyer, he said he had not said that.
I guess you can fire someone for lying and toxic behaviour?
It seems to have come to a head a bit over board member Helen Toner criticizing OpenAI's approach to safety. Altman I think wanted her gone and she wanted him gone hence the battle. I guess the employees and investors figured they wanted to be rich and could put up with the lying and toxic behaviour.
One of the few powers of the board is to fire the CEO. I do not see why there is any need for codified reasons. If the board thinks the CEO should do better, that is all that matters.
The CEO can be drunk, liar, cheat, steal, and be incompetent only as long as the board thinks it is ok.
[dead]
Reminds me of:
“In his presence, reality is malleable. He can convince anyone of practically anything. It wears off when he’s not around, but it makes it hard to have realistic schedules.”
[flagged]
Both “sides” of the billionaire coin are what’s wrong with the world more than just about anything else.
Ok, then stop consuming shit.
[dead]
He's taking a lot of heat. Leave him alone.