It might also be the case that the board is not used to things like this, as the board doesn't contain any seasoned board members/executives apart from Adam. Ideally board would be advised by lawyers but who knows.

I don’t buy this narrative that the board is made of “nobodies”. Sure, they might be not be well-known on the SV-board-circuit, but that doesn’t make them unskilled. Nor do I buy that they’re not advised by lawyers; the way I read the board statement is that Altman has lied about _something_ radioactive enough to cause them to dump him basically on the spot, a move that to me, sounds like their legal team went “this is bad, get rid of it”. The speed of it especially makes me think it’s something that had to act quickly on to get ahead of-which would explain the speed with which he was let go, MS was informed, and the public statement was made.

Yeah I think most of the speculation is way too mundane. Those factional disputes may exist, but it's clear that something big and serious happened to prompt a very sudden firing with that particular statement.

My theory is that there are some hidden, super important details to the whole convoluted structure and its relationship and ownership structure with MSFT that has perhaps just come to light. it seems like such a weird structure, I can imagine it not being too hard to obscure from the board some big sticking points.

Exactly.

The board probably sucks and Sam lies to deal with it.

That seems like an incredibly bad strategy on his part though.

Like, doing that is just actively making your own life difficult.

Edit: thinking about it more: lying to the board, even if they suck, seems like the fast-track to completely blowing away your own reputation.

Sam seems to have an enormous ego, so it's not out of the world of possibilities.

What’s he supposed to do?

Certainly not lie to them! Hahaha

- Manage upwards, like everyone else

- figure out how to communicate effectively with them, educating and bringing them up to speed where necessary so you’re all on the same page.

I’m not even a C-level, but “communicating effectively” should absolutely be a part of your skill set by this level.

He'd still 100% wrong.

"I think you're wrong, so let me lie and manipulate to get my way."

Utter toxic twattery.

Hypothetically how would you handle an incompetent nonprofit board?

How do you distinguish between an incompetent non-profit board and a board you disagree with? Outright "incompetence" in these types of things is hard to quantify. So I would deal with that by accepting there are people in the world who disagree with me and then using the normal methods of dealing with that, as difficult and frustrating as that can be.

"I firmly believe in my right, and will do whatever it takes to get my way" is one of the quicker ways to completely corrupt both the general conversation and yourself. Because what if you're wrong? I can no longer address your actual arguments, because you keep them hidden from me. We can no longer compromise because I no longer know what you want.

> How do you distinguish between an incompetent non-profit board and a board you disagree with?

Take a look at the board composition and its recent actions.

I have no idea what you're referring to as I don't follow these types of things day-to-day, but it absolutely baffles me that we're having this conversation in the first place and that people are seriously making a "it's okay to lie through your teeth if people are being stupid" argument. It's morally bankrupt, corrupting, and is utterly vile.

Never said it was okay to lie. I am saying a competent board could have handled things differently. Depending on what actually happened, everyone can be in the wrong here.

> Never said it was okay to lie.

All your messages in this thread strongly suggest you do. e.g. "What’s he supposed to do?" certainly does not come across as a mark of disapproval and I have no idea how else to interpret this.

If you meant to say something else then you should have said something clearer than a string of vague one-liners that signal approval in any common sense reading.

It’s got some board members: tick.

They got rid of a guy for lying to them: seems reasonable

Promoted an interim CEO in the interim: yep

His mate took his toys and left in response: seems OTT but that’s his problem.

Not seeing the problem here?

I wouldn’t keep working for them. Sometimes there isn’t an optimal outcome, in which case it’s often best to cut losses and leave.

“You go to [work] with the [board] you have, not the [board] you might want or wish to have.”

The Heroic CEO * meme.

Most easily identifiable by the 'familiar' first name use.

* The Heroic CEO toils against naysayers and unbelievers to deliver on his immaculate vision. It's too important to follow the rules.

Literally officially breaking out the microwave as we speak, tonight's going to be a ride

I just wanted to spend a relaxing evening playing Fallout: New Vegas, and instead the world's leading AI company went all Tessier-Ashpool on my timeline

Fallout 4 is better anyway.

/duck

sam seems to have a personality cult, reading these news responses.

id suspect exfiltrating tech to a more cultish and probusiness platform with a copilots.