[kmlevitt]

I agree with you. But that leads me to believe that they did not, in fact, have a good reason to fire their CEO. I'll change my mind about that if or when they provide better reasons.

Look at all the speculation on here. There are dozens of different theories about why they did what they did running so rampant people are starting to accept each of them as fact, when in fact probably all of them are going to turn out to be wrong.

People need to take a step back and look at the available evidence. This report is the clearest indication we have gotten of their reasons, and they come from a reliable source. Why are we not taking them at their word?

[katastofik]

> Why are we not taking them at their word?

Ignoring the lack of credibility in the given explanations, people are, perhaps, also wary that taking boards/execs at their word hasn't always worked out so well in the past.

Until an explanation that at least passes the sniff test for truthiness comes out, people will keep speculating.

And so they should.

[kmlevitt]

Right, except most people here are proposing BETTER reasons for why they fired him. Which ignores that if any of these better reasons people are proposing were actually true, they would just state them themselves instead of using ones that sound like pitiful excuses.

[katastofik]

Whether it be dissecting what the Kardashians ate for breakfast or understanding why the earth may or may not be flat, seeking to understand the world around us is just what we do as humans. And part of that process is "speculating sensational, justifiable reasons" for why things may be so.

Of course, what is actually worth speculating over is up for debate. As is what actually constitutes a better theory.

But, if people think this is something worth pouring their speculative powers into, they will continue to do so. More power to them.

Now, personally, I'm partly with you here. There is an element of futility in speculating at this stage given the current information we have.

But I'm also partly with the speculators here insofar as the given explanations not really adding up.

[kmlevitt]

Think you're still missing what I'm saying. Yes, I understand people will speculate. I'm doing it myself here in this very thread.

The problem is people are beginning to speculate reasons for Altman's firing that have no bearing or connection to what the board members in question have actually said about why they fired him. And they don't appear to be even attempting to reconcile their ideas with that reality.

There's a difference between trying to come up with theories that fit with the available facts and everything we already know, and ignoring all that to essentially write fanfiction that cast the board in a far better light than the available information suggests.

[katastofik]

Agreed. I think I understood you as being more dismissive of speculation per se.

As for the original question -- why are we not taking them at their word? -- the best I can offer is my initial comment. That is, the available facts (that is, what board members have said) don't really match anything most people can reconcile with their model of how the world works.

Throw this in together with a learned distrust of anything that's been fed through a company's PR machine, and are we really surprised people aren't attempting to reconcile the stated reality with their speculative theories?

Now sure, if we were to do things properly, we should at least address why we're just dismissing the 'facts' when formulating our theories. But, on the other hand, when most people's common sense understanding of reality is that such facts are usually little more than fodder for the PR spin machine, why bother?