If the board had shared something equivalent to this article at the time, perhaps there wouldn't have been such an intense internal pressure campaign.
Instead, they did not even attempt to communicate any rationale behind their actions.
Instead, they did not even attempt to communicate any rationale behind their actions.
Mr. Altman’s departure follows a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities. The board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI.
https://openai.com/index/openai-announces-leadership-transit...
I even said so at the time.
Instead, it's good form to wait 6 months and then do a Business Insider interview on the topic?
Also, "bad mouthing" suggests putting a spin on it. Based on the article, they should have been able to list out several objective facts that supported their decision. Instead, they opened it all up to intense speculation by providing a vague justification and by remaining tight lipped even once it became clear that a lot of clarification was needed.