What went down at OpenAI: A theory of the case
We recorded 4 claims from this post. 4 can’t be checked. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (4)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“The second is that nobody does something that dramatic without some kind of serious motivation; already it looks like the planned $86B valuation might not go through, per The Information.”
What we tested: According to The Information's reporting, it already looks like OpenAI's planned $86B valuation might not go through.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“A lot of shareholders could be pissed; unless there was a smoking gun, the litigation could be endless.”
What we tested: A lot of shareholders could be angry, and unless there was a smoking gun, the litigation could be endless.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“(In my view, without some sort of documentation, they wouldn’t have pulled the trigger).”
What we tested: In Marcus's view, the OpenAI board would not have fired Altman without some sort of documentation.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“At some point the board came to believe this new company would undermine the nonprofit’s mission, and also discovered, perhaps e.g., from an email that someone got hold of, that he was not candid with them about important details—in ways that shattered trust.”
What we tested: Marcus guesses that the OpenAI board fired Altman because it believed his planned new venture would undermine the nonprofit's mission and found he had not been candid about important details, shattering trust.