What went down at OpenAI: A theory of the case
We recorded 4 claims from this post. 4 can’t be checked. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (4)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“The second is that nobody does something that dramatic without some kind of serious motivation; already it looks like the planned $86B valuation might not go through, per The Information.”
Our reading: According to The Information's reporting, it already looks like OpenAI's planned $86B valuation might not go through.
No horizon
Qualifier: per The Information
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“A lot of shareholders could be pissed; unless there was a smoking gun, the litigation could be endless.”
Our reading: A lot of shareholders could be angry, and unless there was a smoking gun, the litigation could be endless.
No horizon
Only if: unless there was a smoking gun
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“(In my view, without some sort of documentation, they wouldn’t have pulled the trigger).”
Our reading: In Marcus's view, the OpenAI board would not have fired Altman without some sort of documentation.
No horizon
Only if: without some sort of documentation
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“At some point the board came to believe this new company would undermine the nonprofit’s mission, and also discovered, perhaps e.g., from an email that someone got hold of, that he was not candid with them about important details—in ways that shattered trust.”
Our reading: Marcus guesses that the OpenAI board fired Altman because it believed his planned new venture would undermine the nonprofit's mission and found he had not been candid about important details, shattering trust.
No horizon
Qualifier: offered as a guess / theory of the case