Resolves YES if Sam Altman, a member of the OpenAI board, or a credible journalist publicly gives details about why Altman was removed.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ753 | |
| 2 | Ṁ346 | |
| 3 | Ṁ270 | |
| 4 | Ṁ120 | |
| 5 | Ṁ105 |
@Harlan There was a bit of ambiguity here, mostly because I didn't operationalize this market very precisely. But from what I can tell, we have a pretty good idea of what happened at this point, even if we don't know all of the exact details.
@zaperrer I googled something like "why was Sam Altman fired?" and Google gave me this Business Insider article
There was some ambiguity about what "gives details" means, and that's my bad. I thought back to when I was creating this market and tried to do my best to model what past-Harlan meant by that, and I think that he didn't mean "will we be certain about every detail" but more like "will we have a general understanding of what type of things happened." It might be easy to forget that at the time of market creation, it was extremely unclear what had happened, and we are in a very different epistemic state from that now.
I don't really want to rules lawyer here and I'll take my loss without complaint if this resolves against me. That being said, I'm not sure why this market is decaying, since @Harlan hasn't weighed in yet? This could be already a YES and he just hasn't gotten around to it.
Many credible journalists have given details about his removal, quoting several members of the OpenAI board. It's not a very detailed market (which is fine), so could go either way.
@DanMan314 It’s very weird, especially since at least one of the Why was Sam Altman fired? has already resolved.
@HarlanStewart could you please comment on what more info you’d need for a YES resolution?
@MattCWilson not sure if this counts, they explicitly said she declined to provide details
@Weezing I’m not sure what additional details we need, or expect?
These paragraphs contain a bit of new info, and also corroborate the previous board statement, no?
Altman approached other board members, trying to convince each to fire Toner. Later, some board members swapped notes on their individual discussions with Altman. The group concluded that in one discussion with a board member, Altman left a misleading perception that another member thought Toner should leave, the people said.
By this point, several of OpenAI’s then-directors already had concerns about Altman’s honesty, people familiar with their thinking said. His efforts to unseat Toner, parts of which were previously reported by the New Yorker, added to what those people said was a series of actions that slowly chipped away at their trust in Altman and led to his unexpected firing on the Friday before Thanksgiving.
@MattCWilson I guess my question is, if this really is all of the reason, how much more “detail” can there be?
@MattCWilson true, what I meant is that if that older article wasnt enough to resolve this (the one where they say he tried to oust her) then this new one does not add much. But I would say the previous article is sufficient, because it provides details of the firing and maybe this wasnt resolved because no one posted it.
Edit I guess the old one was just a leak and this one is interview with the board member, where she repeated she wasnt hobest butbrefused to provide details.
@Weezing Yeah, that for me is the update - a board member speaking out directly about what happened.
This also increases the odds we’ll hear from other board members.
@MattCWilson These paragraphs are attributed to “the people said” not from a board member directly so this could just be hearsay. This is from a credible journalist but I haven’t seen other credible journalists referencing/confirming this one, all reporting since this article is that we still don’t know.
@zaperrer Anybody at the board who has permission to speak publicly about what happened will not have any interest in fueling the flames of this controversy.