Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by togetheragainor | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

togetheragainor

I’m even more confused now than before I read the article:

- Sutskever and Murati compile evidence of Altman’s lies and manipulation to oust him.

- Sutskever emails the evidence to the board and suggests they act on it.

- The board fires Altman but refuses to explain why.

- Murati demands the board explain why.

- The board refuses, and Murati and Sutskever rebel against the board and petition with other employees to reinstate Altman.

It all makes no sense. And why wouldn’t the board just explain their decision if Murati herself was imploring them to do so?

View on HN

I read the article on archive and figured there was a big chunk missing. It really does not make any sense.

Sutskever and Murati were methodical, they waited until the board was favorable to the outcome they wanted, engaged with board members individually laying the groundwork... and then just changed their mind when it actually happened!?

The article says Sutskever was blindsided by the rank-and-file being on Sam's side. Presumably he thought the outcome was going to be business as more-or-less usual but with Murati or someone as CEO and then panicked when that didn't happen.

Or someone said "If you don't switch and back me, I am going to fight every bit of your compensation. Or you can back me and leave with favorable terms."

Panic is a less likely driver.

The board did not plan or execute their ouster well, which forced Murati and Sutskever to coup their coup to maintain the stability of the company. The board and Sutskever were expecting the general support of the company, so they had no real backup plan or evidence ready that they could publicly release.

Why couldn’t they release the evidence? At least some of it is here in the article, and it’s damaging to Sam but not particularly damaging to the company. If Murati demanded they release the evidence, why refuse?

Murati didn't demand they release the evidence, as far as I could tell. The board are describing as not wanting to throw Murati under the bus by stating the evidence came from her, which makes sense if their goal was to install her as the new CEO.

> [Murati] and the rest of the executive team gave the board a 30-minute deadline to explain why they fired Altman or resign—or else the executive team would quit en masse.

> The board felt they couldn’t divulge that it had been Murati who had given them some of the most detailed evidence of Altman’s management failings.

Unclear whether she wanted it released internally or publicly, but this sounds like a demand to me.

She/the team demanded an explanation, not the Murati-sourced evidence. You could read this as Murati asking the board to provide a narrative the rest of the team could buy into without directly using her evidence; I would assume that she was operating under the assumption that the board had already prepared such a narrative.

It makes perfectly sense if you don't try to read too much logic into their actions and view it solely from the social dynamics/emotions (Murati early realised that the coup led by Sutskever, Toner and her had failed). Besides that, the board installing her as new ceo - who provided the main claims for why to oust the old ceo - wouldn't fly through with employees and partners. She knew that. Also some of the people on the board clearly weren't qualified for that job as you can see how this whole coup was carried out by them.

> And why wouldn’t the board just explain their decision if Murati herself was imploring them to do so?

I think because they were in over their heads. They were on the board to run a non-profit and then it metastasized into a high-stakes Fortune 50-sized company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com