This doesn’t seem impossible given the timing, but I’d still be very surprised if this was what the board’s decision was about. (I’m especially skeptical that it would be exclusively about this.) For one thing, the board announcement uses the wording “hindering [the board’s] ability to exercise its responsibilities.” This doesn’t seem like the wording someone would choose if their decision was prompted by investigating events that happened more than twenty years ago and which don’t directly relate to beneficial use of AI or running a company. (Even in the unlikely case where the board decided to open an investigation into abuse allegations and then caught Sam Altman lying about details related to that, it’s not apparent why they would describe these hypothetical lies as “hindering [the board’s] ability to exercise its responsibilities,” as opposed to using wording that’s more just about “lost the board’s trust.”) Besides, I struggle to picture board members starting an investigation solely based on one accusation from when the person in question was still a teenager. I’m not saying that these accusations are for sure unimportant – in fact, I said the opposite on that LW comment thread. It’s just that… Despite the good advice here about how boards should keep a close eye on leadership, I don’t think it’s a board’s role or comparative advantage to focus on investigating stuff like that. Especially once they already have confirmed their standing CEO and in the absence of more direct red flags. (It would maybe be a bit different if this was a CEO selection process and Sam Altman was a new applicant that board members had only little information about.) One option I can see is that, maybe if the board already had other reasons to be concerned, then learning about the accusations could give them further fuel for investigations. Alternatively, though, it seems much more likely to me that this was about other things entirely. (Perhaps something related to publicly announcing that OpenAI “created AGI internally” and then backpedaling it, while also saying that short AI timelines are best for humanity even though an alignment solution is far from in sight?)
I very much doubt he was fired over the allegations. However, if the allegations are true, it would raise the likelihood that he engaged in other sketchy or unethical behaviour that we don’t know about.
“not consistently candid” seems to be an implication that he was deceptive to the board about something, at least. It could have just been about strategy, or it could have involved personal misbehaviour as well.
Yeah, now that more information has come to light, it seems to be clearly about disagreements about how to pursue the OpenAI mission. I wonder if the board can point to at least one objectively outrageous thing that Altman was deceptive about, or whether it was more subtle stuff that added up but is hard to convey to outsiders. For instance, I could imagine that they got “empty promises” vibes from Altman where he was placating the most safety-concerned voices at OpenAI by saying he’ll take such and such precautions later in the future, but then kept doing things that are at odds with taking safety seriously, until people had enough and felt deceived and like they could no longer trust his assurances. In this scenario, it’s going to be difficult for the board and for Sutskever to convey that their decision wasn’t some overreaction. (FWIW, I think it can be totally justifiable to fire someone over weasel-like assurances about mission alignment that never led to any visible actions – it’s just tricky that there’s always some plausible deniability where the CEO can say “I was going to take action later, like I said; it’s just that you people are insufficiently pragmatic and don’t have experience dealing with investors like Microsoft; and anyway, the tech isn’t risky enough yet and you all are freaking out.”)
It would seem like a bad move to openly say the “not consistently candid” and “hindering responsibilities” thing if there was no objective deception they could point to. Even if they don’t state what happened publicly, the board has to be able to defend it’s actions to it’s employees and to it’s partners at Microsoft.
My impression is that this type of public admonishment is rather rare for the ousting of a CEO, and it would be more typical to talk about a “difference of vision” or something similarly bland. I think either they have a clear cut case against him, or the board has mishandled the situation.
This is mere speculation, but another group I’m on posited this might be part of it:
Sam Altman’s sister, Annie Altman, claims Sam has severely abused her
This doesn’t seem impossible given the timing, but I’d still be very surprised if this was what the board’s decision was about. (I’m especially skeptical that it would be exclusively about this.) For one thing, the board announcement uses the wording “hindering [the board’s] ability to exercise its responsibilities.” This doesn’t seem like the wording someone would choose if their decision was prompted by investigating events that happened more than twenty years ago and which don’t directly relate to beneficial use of AI or running a company. (Even in the unlikely case where the board decided to open an investigation into abuse allegations and then caught Sam Altman lying about details related to that, it’s not apparent why they would describe these hypothetical lies as “hindering [the board’s] ability to exercise its responsibilities,” as opposed to using wording that’s more just about “lost the board’s trust.”) Besides, I struggle to picture board members starting an investigation solely based on one accusation from when the person in question was still a teenager. I’m not saying that these accusations are for sure unimportant – in fact, I said the opposite on that LW comment thread. It’s just that… Despite the good advice here about how boards should keep a close eye on leadership, I don’t think it’s a board’s role or comparative advantage to focus on investigating stuff like that. Especially once they already have confirmed their standing CEO and in the absence of more direct red flags. (It would maybe be a bit different if this was a CEO selection process and Sam Altman was a new applicant that board members had only little information about.) One option I can see is that, maybe if the board already had other reasons to be concerned, then learning about the accusations could give them further fuel for investigations. Alternatively, though, it seems much more likely to me that this was about other things entirely. (Perhaps something related to publicly announcing that OpenAI “created AGI internally” and then backpedaling it, while also saying that short AI timelines are best for humanity even though an alignment solution is far from in sight?)
Wasn’t that just a throwaway joke on Reddit?
I very much doubt he was fired over the allegations. However, if the allegations are true, it would raise the likelihood that he engaged in other sketchy or unethical behaviour that we don’t know about.
“not consistently candid” seems to be an implication that he was deceptive to the board about something, at least. It could have just been about strategy, or it could have involved personal misbehaviour as well.
Yeah, now that more information has come to light, it seems to be clearly about disagreements about how to pursue the OpenAI mission. I wonder if the board can point to at least one objectively outrageous thing that Altman was deceptive about, or whether it was more subtle stuff that added up but is hard to convey to outsiders. For instance, I could imagine that they got “empty promises” vibes from Altman where he was placating the most safety-concerned voices at OpenAI by saying he’ll take such and such precautions later in the future, but then kept doing things that are at odds with taking safety seriously, until people had enough and felt deceived and like they could no longer trust his assurances. In this scenario, it’s going to be difficult for the board and for Sutskever to convey that their decision wasn’t some overreaction. (FWIW, I think it can be totally justifiable to fire someone over weasel-like assurances about mission alignment that never led to any visible actions – it’s just tricky that there’s always some plausible deniability where the CEO can say “I was going to take action later, like I said; it’s just that you people are insufficiently pragmatic and don’t have experience dealing with investors like Microsoft; and anyway, the tech isn’t risky enough yet and you all are freaking out.”)
It would seem like a bad move to openly say the “not consistently candid” and “hindering responsibilities” thing if there was no objective deception they could point to. Even if they don’t state what happened publicly, the board has to be able to defend it’s actions to it’s employees and to it’s partners at Microsoft.
My impression is that this type of public admonishment is rather rare for the ousting of a CEO, and it would be more typical to talk about a “difference of vision” or something similarly bland. I think either they have a clear cut case against him, or the board has mishandled the situation.