OpenAI's employees were given two explanations for why Sam Altman was fired

Post by Symmetry » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 3:48 PM UTC

pama wrote: post #843

lolinder wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specific legal action could be pursued against them where you're from? Who would have a cause for action? (I'm genuinely curious—in the US I'm not aware of any action that could be taken here by anyone besides possibly Sam Altman for libel.)

I'm guessing that unless the board caves to everything that the counterparties ask of it, MSFT lawyers will very soon reveal to the board the full range of possible legal actions against the board. The public will probably not see many of these actions until months or years later, but it's super hard to imagine that such random jumping of destruction and conflicts will go unpunished.

Post by sgt101 » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 3:52 PM UTC

vbo wrote: post #719

sgt101 wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think ChatGPT has created some harms: - It's been used unethically for psychological and medical purposes (with insufficient testing and insufficient consent, and possible psychological and physical harms). - It has been used to distort educational attainment and undermine the current basis of some credentials as a result. - It has been used to create synthetic content that has been released unmarked into the inter…

and so has the internet. some use it for good, others for evil. these are behaviours and traits of the user, not the tool.

Post by himaraya » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 4:00 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #675

himaraya wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence the need for strict governance. I can't think of another board with so many board seats empty, to say nothing about conflicts of interest.

That's another item, actually. When there are a lot of vacancies on the board you don't make controversial decisions if you can avoid them for fear of being seen as acting without sufficient support for the decision. Especially not if those decisions have the potential to utterly wreck the thing you are supposed to be governing.

Post by pvg » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 4:16 PM UTC

ajb wrote: post #795

robocat wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> avalanched by sneelessness sp.: senselessness (I guess since it appears to be a Googlewhack). But I'll be honest I think the word sneelessness covers this whole FUBAR better!

I was assuming it meant 'Significant New Information'-lessness. Which perfectly captures why I've found the discussion frustrating, since there was loads of speculation on no concrete information. So even if it was a typo, I think it's a great new word

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 4:18 PM UTC

tiahura wrote: post #859

jacquesm wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because anything they say that isn't in line with the rules governing how boards work may well open them up to - even more - liability. So they're essentially hoping that nobody will sue them but if they are sued that their own words can't be used as evidence against them. That's why lawyers usually tell you to shut up, because even if the court of public opinion needs to be pacified somehow the price of that may wel…

If it was all about liability, The press release wouldn’t have said anything about honesty. The press release could’ve just said the parting was due to a disagreement about the path forward for openAI. As a lawyer, I wonder to what extent lawyers were actually consulted and involved with the firing.