OpenAI is a private company and not obligated nor is it generally advised for them to comment publicly on why people are fired. I know that having a public explanation would be useful for the plot development of everyone’s favorite little soap opera, but it makes pretty much zero sense and doesn’t lend credence to any position whatsoever.

Taking decisions in a way that seems opaque and arbitrary will not bring much support from employees, partners and investors. They did not fire a random employee. Not disclosing relevant information for such a key decision was proven, once again, to be a disaster.

This is not about soap opera, this is about business and a big part is based on trust.

Since barely any information was made publicly we have to assume the employees had better information that the public. So how can we say they lacked critical thinking when we don't have access to the information they have?

I didn’t claim employees were engaged in groupthink. I’m taking issue with the claim that because there is no public explanation, there must not be a good explanation.

That is a logical fallacy clawing your face. Upvotes to whoever can name which one.

And yet here we are with a result that not only runs counter to your premise but will taught as an example of what not to do in business.

What?

> OpenAI is a private company and not obligated nor is it generally advised for them to comment publicly on why people are fired.

The interim CEO said the board couldn’t even tell him why the old CEO was fired.

Microsoft said the board couldn’t even tell them why the old CEO was fired.

The employees said the board couldn’t explain why the CEO was fired.

When nobody can even begin to understand the board’s actions and they can’t even explain themselves, it’s a recipe for losing confidence. And that’s exactly what happened, from investors to employees.

I’m specifically taking issue with this common meme that the public is owed some sort of explanation. I agree the employees (and obviously the incoming CEO) would be.

And there’s a difference between, “an explanation would help their credibility” versus “a lack of explanation means they don’t have a good reason.”

All explanations lend credence to positions which is why is not a good idea to comment on anything. Looks like they’re lawyered up.

I agree with both the commenter above you and you.

Yes, you are right that the board had weak sauce reasoning for the firing (giving two teams the same project!?!).

That said, the other commenter is right that this is the beginning of the end.

One of the interesting things over the past few years watching the development of AI has been that in parallel to the demonstration of the limitations of neural networks has been many demonstrations of the limitations of human thinking and psychology.

Altman just got given a blank check and crowned as king of OpenAI. And whatever opposition he faced internally just lost all its footing.

That's a terrible recipe for long term success.

Whatever the reasons for the firing, this outcome is going to completely screw their long term prospects, as no matter how wonderful a leader someone is, losing the reality check of empowered opposition results in terrible decisions being made unchecked.

He's going to double down on chat interfaces because that's been their unexpected bread and butter up until the point they get lapped by companies with broader product vision, and whatever elements at OpenAI shared that broader vision are going to get steamrolled now that he's been given an unconditional green light until they jump ship over the next 18 months to work elsewhere.

Not necessarily! Facebook has done great with its unfireable CEO. The FB board would certainly have fired him several times over by now if it could, and yet they'd have been wrong every time. And the Google cofounders would certainly have been kicked out of their own company if the board had been able to.

Yes, also Elon.

Yes, the original letter had (for an official letter) quite some serious allegations, insinuations. If after a week, they decided not to back up their claims, I'm not sure there is anything big coming.

On the other hand, if they had some serious concerns, serious enough to fire the CEO in such a disgraceful way, I don't understand why they don't stick to their guns, and explain themselves. If you think OpenAI under Sam's leadership is going to destroy humanity, I don't understand how they (e.g. Ilya) reverted their opinions after a day or two.

These board members failed miserably in their intent.

Also, they will find a hard time joining any other board from now on.

They should have backed up the claims in the letter. They didn’t.

This means they didn’t have how to backup their claims. They didn’t think it through… extremely amateurish behavior.

D'Angelo wasn't even removed from this board; this is simply not how failing works at this level.

He's part of the selection panel but he won't be a part of the new 9 member board.

Yet

It's possible the big, chaotic blowup forced some conversations that were easier to avoid in the normal day-to-day, and those conversations led to some vital resolution of concerns.

My guess is that the arguments are something along the lines of “OpenAIs current products are already causing harm or on the path to do so” or something similar damaging to the products. Something they are afraid of both having continue to move forward on and to having to communicate as it would damage the brand. Like “We already have reports of several hundred people killing themselves because of ChatGPT responses…” and everyone would say, “Oh that makes… wait what??”