At the same time, there are claims that Emmett couldn’t get the board to explain their reasoning to him get written documentation of the board’s reasoning, so if those claims are true, then “nothing to do with a specific safety issue” might just be a claim from the board by proxy.
I thought that the claim was that the board refused to give Emmett a reason in writing. Do we have confirmation that they didn’t give him a reason at all? Going based off this article which says
New CEO Emmett Shear has so far been unable to get written documentation of the board’s detailed reasoning for firing Altman, which also hasn’t been shared with the company’s investors, according to people familiar with the situation.
Emphasis mine. I’m reading this as being “the most outrageous sounding description of the situation it is possible to make without saying anything that is literally false”.
At the same time, there are claims that Emmett couldn’t
get the board to explain their reasoning to himget written documentation of the board’s reasoning, so if those claims are true, then “nothing to do with a specific safety issue” might just be a claim from the board by proxy.I thought that the claim was that the board refused to give Emmett a reason in writing. Do we have confirmation that they didn’t give him a reason at all? Going based off this article which says
Emphasis mine. I’m reading this as being “the most outrageous sounding description of the situation it is possible to make without saying anything that is literally false”.
Yep, thanks, corrected. (I think that still could possibly imply the consequent, but it’s a much weaker connection.)