[ben_w]

We already know there's been a leadership failure due to the mere existence of the board weirdness last year; if there has been any clarity to that, I've missed it for all the popcorn gossiping related to it.

Everyone including the board's own chosen replacements for Altman siding with Altman seems to me to not be compatible with his current leadership being the root cause of the current discontent… so I'm blaming Microsoft, who were the moustache-twirling villains when I was a teen.

Of course, thanks to the NDAs hiding information, I may just be wildly wrong.

[Sharlin]

Everyone? What about the board that fired him, and all of those who’ve left the company? It seems to me more like those people are leaving who are rightly concerned about the direction things are going, and those people are staying who think that getting rich outweighs ethical – and possibly existential – concerns. Plus maybe those who still believe they can effect a positive change within the company. With regard to the letter – it’s difficult to say how many of the undersigned simply signed because of social pressure.

[ben_w]

> Everyone? What about the board that fired him,

I meant of the employees, obviously not the board.

Also excluded: all the people who never worked there who think Altman is weird, Elon Musk who is suing them (and probably the New York Times on similar grounds), and the protestors who dropped leaflets on one of his public appearances.

> and all of those who’ve left the company?

Happened after those events; at the time it was so close to being literally employee who signed the letter saying "bring Sam back or we walk" that the rest can be assumed to have been off sick that day even despite the reputation the US has for very limited holidays and getting people to use those holidays for sick leave.

> It seems to me more like those people are leaving who are rightly concerned about the direction things are going, and those people are staying who think that getting rich outweighs ethical – and possibly existential – concerns. Plus maybe those who still believe they can effect a positive change within the company.

Obviously so, I'm only asserting that this doesn't appear to be due to Altman, despite him being CEO.

("Appear to be" is of course doing some heavy lifting here: unless someone wants to literally surveil the company and publish the results, and expect that to be illegal because otherwise it makes NDAs pointless, we're all in the dark).

[shkkmo]

It's hard to guage exactly how much credence to put in that letter due to the gag contracts.

How much was it in support of Altman and how much was in opposition to the extremely poorly explained in board decisions, and how much was pure self interest due to stock options?

I think when a company chooses secrecy, they abandon much of the benefit of the doubt. I don't think there is any basis for absolving Altman.