Would be hard to believe just by itself, but when you assemble that with the lies OpenAI gave around the stories of the non-disparagement agreements and the number of employees quietly quitting to join other companies, I do veer on Helen’s side.

I still have a hard time understanding how the petition to bring Altman was so popular if he was so toxic.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

She also revealed details about the company’s internal dynamics and the events surrounding CEO Sam Altman’s surprise firing and subsequent rehiring last November.

She mentioned that two OpenAI executives had reported instances of “psychological abuse” to the board, providing screenshots and documentation to support their claims.

The allegations made by the former OpenAI executives, as relayed by Toner, suggest that Altman’s leadership style fostered a “toxic atmosphere” at the company:

Toner attributed this swift comeback to employees who believed the company would collapse without him, saying they also feared retaliation from Altman if they did not support his return.

It was very hard for those people who had had terrible experiences to actually say that… if Sam did stay in power, as he ultimately did, that would make their lives miserable."

The review concluded that the prior board’s decision was not based on concerns regarding product safety or security, the pace of development, OpenAI’s finances, or its statements to investors, customers, or business partners."

The original article contains 698 words, the summary contains 164 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!