>The board did not remove Sam over any specific disagreement on safety, their reasoning was completely different from that.
So why is this article titled "OpenAI's board had safety concerns"? It doesn't seem to provide any new evidence for that claim, only a link to a Bloomberg article from the 17th (which is basically ancient history in this bizarre saga).
This is not original reporting, it’s just summarizing others (now seemingly outdated) reporting and speculation of twitter users with no first hand knowledge, although I guess it provides a coherent narrative of the twitter speculation, but presents it as fact. :/
3 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 31.2 ms ] thread>The board did not remove Sam over any specific disagreement on safety, their reasoning was completely different from that.
So why is this article titled "OpenAI's board had safety concerns"? It doesn't seem to provide any new evidence for that claim, only a link to a Bloomberg article from the 17th (which is basically ancient history in this bizarre saga).