(At the end of the second paragraph)
Resolves YES if there is a statement from the board, Sam Altman, or anyone else with insider knowledge of the firing, that implies that this had a part in Sam's firing. Resolves NO after 2 months have elapsed, or if a definitive account of Sam's firing appears that does not include this move.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ105 | |
| 2 | Ṁ22 | |
| 3 | Ṁ4 | |
| 4 | Ṁ2 |
Accounts continue to solidify around explanations of firing being catalysed by beef with Toner, but more specifically, Altman's perceived dishonest conduct whilst manoeuvring to remove her:
Recent WSJ article: https://archive.is/Sy3Xm
This isn't definitive or anything, since the accounts about the dishonestly are attributed to an unnamed source. But we're not seeing much more info, definitive or otherwise, around beef with Sutskever (though likely there's beef now, after the firing, given Sutskever's role in it). So a YES resolution here is looking decreasingly likely.
Appreciate that it doesn't resolve N/A if no good evidence emerges!