🏅 Top traders

my limit orders nooo lol

Oh I didn't even notice lmao why were those there

@Joshua LOL all good

nov 20, I was still primitive, didn't have an expiration date

Oh geeze, I forgot this market was still going. So far there is not sufficiently substantive reporting to resolve any of these options to yes. I expect them all to resolve no at the end of the month, per the description.

Alright, done resolving for today I think. I've also closed the market from more submissions so as not to give myself too much more work, but could open it again if we get more reporting.

The New Yorker Story here has has the following sections I've quoted in other market comment sections:

The first block is from an anonymous source "familiar with the board's discussions". The second block is directly quoting Helen Toner, who was willing to talk to this person.

I take this as concrete enough to resolve "His opinions on OpenAI personnel" to yes, when adding it to the earlier report of Ilya presenting that as a vauge explanation here:

I'm also planning to resolve the "two people on the same project" option to yes.

Does anyone strongly disagree with either of these? We may yet get more information that can resolve other options to yes, but right now I'm bearish on all other options based on current reporting.

I also think that I can resolve some options here to "no" if they fall under "malfeasance" which the board specifically denied as the reasoning. For example, it's absolutely not Sexual Misconduct. I'd like to resolve joke answers like the one about him having a manifold account or AGI being achieved internally to "no" as well.

No one has a huge amount of mana locked up here, but I see no reason to put it off when it's certain.

One of the Twitter theories is that Adam D'Angelo was upset Sam didn't inform him about GPTs before Dev Day, which would directly compete with Poe.

I can't believe the reason might actually be something as petty as this.

@PlasmaBallin Would be the biggest case of hanlon's razor of all time, But yeah, so far this is the most direct reporting we have.

@Joshua other options may yet resolve yes of course, i'd caution anyone against putting too much mana into a market like this when everything is still vauge as hell.

@Joshua So what's the plan for resolving these options (and others)? You could argue that they should already resolve YES. Do we need a public statement from the board?

@Shump one business insider article with anonymous sources should not count as sufficient evidence to resolve in my mind.

@RobertCousineau Yeah I would like to wait more before resolving anything. I don't require that we hear this from the board in a press release or anything, I do trust this report. But I'd like to be able to hear more, because it seems insane if this was the complete story.

Any idea what "not candid about the fact that he wanted to reduce the control the board had on him, by creating new companies that were not direct competitors to openAI but that would'nt be controlled by the board", would fit to?

@TheBayesian It's possible that this could count as something he was not candid about, yeah. I'd still like to see more reporting.

Not being "consistently candid in his communications" sounds like corporate speech for "lying to the board" imo.

I for one welcome the uninformed hot takes on what it is he lied about.

@VerySeriousPoster Market on whether or not Sam was "lying to the board": https://manifold.markets/CalebBiddulph/did-sam-altman-literally-lie-to-the?r=Q2FsZWJCaWRkdWxwaA

I always question myself when I make one of these about whether I correctly selected "anyone can add an answer", I wish there was a way to check.

@Joshua I can add an answer.