26days later, this still feels like a clear NO for me. The issues were about his professional role and behavior not some outside-work personal misbehavior

@Ernie Resolves YES

The ChatGPT maker tapped the law firm WilmerHale to look into what led the company to abruptly fire Altman in November, only to rehire him days later. After months of investigation, it found that Altman’s ouster was a “consequence of a breakdown in the relationship and loss of trust” between him and the prior board, OpenAI said Friday

https://apnews.com/article/openai-sam-altman-chatgpt-2f3303dff2280478947e9bfb04863537

@Shump Loss of trust itself is not decisive either way. the description makes it rather clear, that personal issues are limited to non-AI related decision-making.

I will go over all the sentences and evaluate them:

something like "lying about business issues" doesn't count.

i.e. this says that lying about business issues is NOT a personal issue. I think it's reasonable to interpret the allegations against him to be basically that he attempted to replace board members who held certain views about AI risk, so that OpenAI and himself would be more free and unrestricted in their development. Yes, this would clearly benefit him personally - but, he is the CEO of OpenAI so all pro-business, or business-beneficial actions would; that doesn't mean they're personal.

Things that would count as YES

• behaving improperly towards someone in/out of work would count.

i.e. sexual harrasment, emotional torture. No one alleges this.

• stealing candy bars from walgreens

No one alleges this

• stealing money from work

No one alleges this; in fact, if his motivations were to free OpenAI from non-profit bounds, his actions would be very pro-business.

• using his influence to try to get a friend/partner hired or someone fired

I did not mention this explicitly, but the implication is that this would be an IMPROPER example of this behavior. Proof: imagine he is friends with a world-class brilliant new engineer who is looking for a job, and he attempts to use his influence to get the person to be hired at OpenAI. Is it reasonable to interpret that as a wrong, personal action? Of course not; if you do so, it means that nearly every exec is basically continuously guilty of taking actions (i.e. trying to hire smart people who would be great for the company, but who are also their friends). Similar for fired - based on his public statements, he gives a very reasonable explanation why he may have used some pressure, persuasion, or even things which might be considered manipulation to have someone removed from power. That job, too, is the duty of an exec, if he or she is doing it for a reason which is aligned with business goals.

Things that would not count

• being mean at work in order to change the priorities of the company

The description calls out that using emotions or interpersonal behavior, which is conventionally, or in the real of sin & moral virtue, considered wrong, even THAT would not be considered to be any type of personal misbehavior, since such tactics are common at executive level.

• being very stubborn about things, or too opinionated, or keeping secrets at work to manipulate the board into making decisions he wants

This section clearly anticipates him possibly using secrecy (which involves lying) and specifically defines that as NOT a personal matter.

The hard cases are where he is alleged to have used his authority to change company direction, but also in a way which is alleged that he would profit from personally.

Again, obviously, profit him personally in ways which are conventionally considered wrong - such as using one's CEO power to give contracts to organizations which the CEO him or herself secretly contains an ownership stake in, and keeping that from the board.

@traders FYI, my current views, as explained above, seem rather different than ones which would lead a price of 97% to be reasonable based on what is known public. If, however, certain parties were in possession of private info, I would have no way to evaluate the reasonableness of bets at all.

As an additional check, I provided all related information to Anthropic's new LLM, Claude 3 opus, asking for his opinion on this. Overall, it was basically in agreement with my prior comment. A copy of the interaction is available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k--oZALrG4TgmWPU4fzko7WiFMZtIKHJ9uTRRPy-T1w/edit?usp=sharing

Feel free to comment.

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1725938914018439383

‘We can say definitively that the board's decision was not made in response to malfeasance or anything related to our financial, business, safety, or security/privacy practices. This was a breakdown in communication between Sam and the board.'

Would worldcoin self-dealing count as personal?

@HastingsGreer yes

limit at 69