I only skimmed through the beginning but I am not sure what the news is. Looks like they mostly/only? pulled it from some filings that I am sure was being put together by third party agents.
Yes, but this comes with the assumption that Sam writes and reviews the website copy, PR statements and S1 form submissions, which any organization of significant size, the CEO does not.
I could believe Elon does though.
And if they can't be trusted to get their own team biographies right, what can they get right?
If a run-of-the mill employee were lying about their experience, they'd be fired. But it's okay for the CEO because he's just so busy? What a double standard.
Did they use their own product to write the bio, and it "hallucinated" that he was chairman?
I think it's a mix of feels good to feel empathetic and say gee prolly just slipped by him, things slip by me, and then without interlocutors, could we ever have discussion? But it's an odd one
Do you use an accountant to file your taxes? Do you read the entire tax document they submit, or do you just look at their summary of "after this much in deductions, you owe this much"?
If you do read the document in full, good on you, but I assure you most people don't, in the same way that most CEOs don't read every single document the company's lawyer produces.
Trust but verify.
The news is that lying on those filings is a federal crime and can lead to jail time (for normal people who are actually subject to law).
1) I don't believe even if malicious this would be a criminal case that leads to jail time.
2) The s-1 filings are prepared and audited by third party companies.
3) Most likely in this case, these positions are listed to outline any potential conflicts of interest. I am not well read on the matter but I could see that you would list potential engagements to note the conflict of interest even if they are not finalized.
does it completely release liability?
And signed by…whom?
That's Altman-esque language.
Still, I doubt anyone is getting fired over this. And the document was not written by an oligarch, lol.
No, only about one, in order to pump up his career, and AIUI signed by him. "lol hahaha"
Who is supposedly at risk of being fired if not the person who wrote the document?
Should Altman fire himself or what are you talking about?
> Who is supposedly at risk of being fired if not the person who wrote the document?
The one who stands to benefit from the lie. In the case of the ordinary Joe that is of course one and the same; he can't afford to hire someone to delegate his CV faking to. But just because the bigshots can offload “trivial” tasks like that onto someone else doesn't make the moral responsibility anyone else's than their own.
Suggesting the one who should be fired is the office slave who actually typed the hype is
1) As absurd as Joe Schmoe claiming it isn't he, but the pen he signed his faked CV with that should be fired; and
2) A sign of a wholly non-functional moral compass.
Yes, I'm sure any board would fire their CEO for this if only he wasn't an oligarch. /s
Yeah, let's see the regular Joe Schmoe get away with how he didn't lie on his CV, it was just “a trivial mistake done by whoever was drafting the document.”
He probably won't, so someone else should do it for him.
(Ideally, someone who seems so shady should of course never have ended up in such positions of power in the first place.)
In the article they quote Marc Fagel, who previously served as the regional director for the SEC's office in San Francisco:
"Misstating the qualifications of executives is something the SEC takes seriously,"
Yeah, probably not. The problem is that they should.
The other problem is that people say stuff like "People don't go to jail for errors like these" as if that weren't a problem.