Hacker News Reader

Comment by chewmieser | Hacker News Reader

She specifically declines in the article to provide the additional context that would probably clarify everything. This is just more non-answers and only a tad more information than we had before (threats of violating a fiduciary duty).

Nobody involved is being transparent about what went down here. Not sure we'll find out the full story here...

View on HN

It's frustrating, but she's exposed to potentially massive personal liability for the board's actions. I'm surprised that she agreed to an interview at all - frankly, I probably wouldn't if I were in her position - and I'm sure her answers were carefully scripted and run by her attorney(s).

I think this Reddit comment captures the most plausible story at this point: https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1812w04/co...

That’s great, thanks for the link there. Seems plausible enough to fill in the blanks.

She wouldn't be the first high-profile member of the EA cult to talk to the press after a scandal, against the advice of any sane lawyer.

Article does give context as to what "inconsistently candid" meant: Altman allegedly went to each board member to say some negative things about Toner, but when board members got together to verify consistency they found out Altman said a false or misleading thing to at least one board member about Toner.

That's not a good look on Altman at all, it looks like Altman was using divide-and-conquer in a skeezy way, spreading around negative impression, even rumors, about his bosses, as a means dispose of a problem.

That information is just regurgitated from the New Yorker article not from this new interview with Toner.

I think that's a technicality if the expressed concern was this piece was just non-answers. It's a regurgitated answer but still new information to many of us.

Declining to give more details is what professionals typically do. In addition to being more risky one's self-interests and the interests of the organization, there are also often very good legal/confidentiality reasons not to run one's mouth off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com