Jump to content

Talk:Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Removal of Sam Altman)
Former good article nomineeRemoval of Sam Altman from OpenAI was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 26, 2023Articles for deletionNo consensus
March 22, 2024Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Name

[edit]

I worry that the name of the article is not specific enough. Should it be akin to "Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI"? I also wonder if this really needs an article when it could just be in the OpenAI article? —Panamitsu (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Apieroni (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given how chaotic the affair has been, I've appreciated there being a Wikipedia page that goes into a level of depth that would be inappropriate for a bio — the OpenAI section on his page is currently four short paragraphs. Ike Saunders (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it's all over, I propose a rename to "Removal and reinstatement of Sam Altman at OpenAI". ciphergoth (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not significant enough for stand-alone article

[edit]

This event doesn't seem to deserve it's own stand-alone article. All relevant facts can be reported on existing pages for Sam Altman or OpenAI. Coffmanesq (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your viewpoint regarding the potential redundancy of the "Removal of Sam Altman" article. However, I believe that this event holds significant importance and merits its own stand-alone article for several reasons:
  1. The removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI is a notable event in the technology and AI industry. Altman is a prominent figure, and his departure from a leading AI organization like OpenAI has wide-ranging implications. This level of impact and the attention it has garnered in the tech community and mainstream media underscore its importance.
  2. The circumstances surrounding Altman's removal involve complex corporate dynamics, ethical considerations in AI, and strategic shifts in a major tech entity. This complexity extends beyond the scope of a brief mention in Altman's or OpenAI's main articles and warrants a detailed, standalone discussion.
  3. The event marks a significant moment in the history of AI development and corporate governance in tech companies. It sets a precedent and could influence future discussions and decisions in the industry. Documenting it in a separate article ensures that this historical context is preserved and made accessible for future reference.
  4. A standalone article allows for a more comprehensive and nuanced exploration of the event, including the lead-up, the event itself, and its aftermath. It provides room to include various viewpoints, analyses, and potential implications that might be lost or underrepresented in a broader article about Sam Altman or OpenAI.
  5. For researchers, students, and individuals interested in the evolution of AI and corporate governance in tech, having a dedicated article on this topic is incredibly valuable. It serves as a focused resource for understanding the complexities of such high-profile leadership changes in the tech world.
Therealslimfan (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a LLM response? TPFNoob (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't fight them, join them. AlexIlte (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Therealslimfan,
Your detailed argument for a standalone article on the "Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI" is quite a read – thorough, well-structured, and remarkably in-depth. It's fascinating how some contributions to Wikipedia echo the depth and analytical prowess one might attribute to, say, an advanced language model. Your points about the event's significance and the complexity of its implications are noted with great interest.
However, this richness in detail and scope leads one to ponder: if such a nuanced discussion can be so eloquently captured in a single talk page contribution, perhaps the essence of this topic is already sufficiently covered within the confines of existing pages on Sam Altman and OpenAI. After all, Wikipedia thrives on concise integration of information, ensuring each subject is contextualized within the larger narrative.
In essence, while your perspective is insightful, it inadvertently illustrates how effectively a complex topic can be encapsulated in a condensed format – perhaps suggesting that a standalone article might be an embellishment we can navigate around, in favor of a more integrated approach in existing articles.
Best regards, [Your Wikipedia Username] (talk) [Timestamp] AlexIlte (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This made me laugh Mr vili (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

[edit]

@Jenny8lee: I noticed you started rewriting the page. I'm not going to revert your edits, but I believe that your rewrite conflicts with the manual of style. Per WP:WBA, Wikipedia maintains a neutral tone devoid of colloquialisms—e.g., "history of the world"—and it is preferable to write paragraphs longer than one or two sentences. This is a style that juxtaposes with journalistic writing. As the writer of many of the rewritten sections, I cannot neutrally speak on whether or not they were in line with the manual of style, but I can attest to my attempt to match that and to write as impersonally as possible. Again, not willing to start an argument or an edit war, just providing a secondary perspective. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 December 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI → Removal and reinstatement of Sam Altman at OpenAI – This is an article with a descriptive title, whose scope has been extended to cover the full arc of events after his removal and including his reinstatment; the title now reads oddly given this arc. ciphergoth (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It would be too long and redundant for an article title imo. Cfls (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article reorganization

[edit]

I think the article would be greatly improved by reorganizing it with the following structure:

  1. Background
  2. Removal
  3. Theories for removal
  4. Reinstatement
  5. Reactions

In other words, I'm suggesting that the "Events leading up to the removal" be renamed, as "Theories for removal" better describes the content of this section. Mokadoshi (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Mokadoshi (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mokadoshi (talk · contribs) 03:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: Not seeing any spelling issues or jargon.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: For the lead, see below comments. The layout looks good, although see comments below. For words to watch, see below. The other MOSes are not applicable.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): With over 100 references, I cannot read every single one in its entirety. As someone who was already more familiar than most with this topic, I did not notice anything surprising or inaccurate to my knowledge after reading the article multiple times. Therefore, I've checked the following: I spot-checked the references list for any opinion pieces; I checked each direct quotation to ensure the source contains the quoted content; I also checked a handful of other things I thought were likely to be contested, like specific dates and people's names. I've left some comments below as to which I didn't believe were WP:RELIABLE.
    C. It contains no original research: I see no indication that there is original research.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: Earwig report is 20%, and it looks like this is just from people's names and titles, and direct quotations. None of the direct quotations are too long to be an issue.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: Close, but see below for more comments.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): No coatracks or other tangents.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: I wish for more detail in some places, but this is true neutrally across all viewpoints, so I don't believe there is any indication of undue weight.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: On hold for 1 week so the remaining issues can be fixed.


Comments

[edit]

Lead

[edit]
  • As per MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADREL, the lead needs to be expanded to appropriately summarize the sections in the article. Once you've done so, you should remove the {{Lead too short}} tag. Specifically, I would suggest you add the quote "consistently candid in his communications" to the lead, as that is a quote that was widely shared when discussing and speculating on this event.
  • As per MOS:CITELEAD, claims in the lead that are likely to be challenged should be cited, especially because this article contains biographical content about a living person. Specifically, any dates should have a citation, and any direct quotations that you may add as part of this review.

Layout

[edit]
  • Optional: I'm a bit confused as to what information you chose to put in the "Background" section vs the "Events leading up to the removal" section. (How is the latter not "background" information?) I think the article would be greatly improved by being reorganized, which I have mentioned on the Talk page. As I understand it, this is not required to address for a GA review though because there is no clear consensus.

Words to watch

[edit]
  • As per MOS:SAID, do not use synonyms for "said", like with Altman quipped that the OpenAI board...
I would argue "quipped" is fine here as Altman was joking. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say he was joking though. Mokadoshi (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per MOS:ALLEGED, do not use words that cast doubt like reportedly and purportedly as it's a form of editorializing. For example, The removal reportedly left OpenAI in "chaos", according to The New York Times. can be changed to simply According to The New York Times, the removal left OpenAI in "chaos". (For this specific quote, bonus points if you say who at The New York Times said this, but it's not required for this review.)
Allegations should be prefaced with descriptors of being an allegation. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I still disagree. The quote from the NYT is By Saturday morning, the company was in chaos, according to a half dozen current and former employees... By using "reportedly" you're casting doubt on the journalist's sources, which is editorializing unless this claim is refuted by other reliable sources. If we're going to do that, why not do it across the whole article, since most of the article is based on journalists quoting anonymous sources? As a random example, According to The Information, Altman is planning a new artificial intelligence venture with Brockman - this is also based on anonymous sources. Mokadoshi (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  • Deadline Hollywood is generally considered to be reliable for entertainment-related articles, which isn't applicable here. That isn't to say it is certainly unreliable, but I think it's easy enough to just replace this.
  • Optional: There is no consensus as to the reliability on TweakTown. With how many reliable sources out there on this topic, I wonder if you can just replace this one as well? Optional in my opinion.
  • Optional: The Hill is considered reliable for American politics, but I don't believe this is covered. However, I don't see anything particularly controversial here, and I've confirmed it's not a "contributor" piece, so it's optional to change.
  • The board of directors of the controlling non-profit formerly comprised chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, as well as Adam D'Angelo, chief executive of Quora, entrepreneur Tasha McCauley, and Helen Toner, strategy director for the Center for Security and Emerging Technology. ☒N Close, but the source doesn't give any title for Toner.
  • As of October 2023, the company is valued at US$80 billion checkY Verified with source.
  • "best bromance in tech" checkY Verified with source.
  • Altman referred to these divisions as "tribes" checkY Verified with source.
  • OpenAI's board of directors ousted Altman effective immediately following a "deliberative review process". The board concluded that Altman was not "consistently candid in his communications" checkY Verified with source.
  • the removal was not due to "malfeasance" checkY Verified with source.
  • "did not mandate removal" checkY Verified with source.
  • The removal reportedly left OpenAI in "chaos" checkY Verified with source.
  • should he "start going off" checkY Verified with source.
  • Musk called the turmoil "troubling" and that he had "mixed feelings" towards Altman. checkY Verified with source.
  • Altman was a "hero to [him]" Gray check markYg Optional: Close, but he said "Altman is a hero of mine." I think it's better if you just say the full quote, or shorten the quote to "hero".
  • misbehaving children checkY Verified with source.
  • OpenAI had "stunningly poor governance" checkY Verified with source.
  • Altman is "welcome in France" checkY Verified with source.
  • Nadella "pulled off a coup of his own" in hiring Altman checkY Verified with source.

Broad in its coverage

[edit]
  • In general the article does a good job of explaining all the different viewpoints, like for example the conflict between Altman and the board re: AI safety. However, I think you're missing some details that a reader would expect in this article. Altman had already attempted to remove Toner from the board. In addition to this, there was disagreement about which new board members Altman would approve the company to appoint. It was believed that these two together were an attempt by Altman to gain full control over the board, thereby nullifying the governance the non-profit arm is supposed to bring to the company. This, along with the AI safety concerns, are the two credible leading theories as to why the removal happened, and the only one to offer an explanation for the "consistently candid in his communications" as so widely discussed. We can't have multiple paragraphs on AI safety and nothing about Altman's previous relationship with the board. Here is one source you can use for this, but there are plenty of reliable sources online about this.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article title

[edit]

@Astropulse: is making multiple page moves. I don't see the issue with the old title, "Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI", which seems to have been held through multiple discussions, none of which propose "ouster" titles. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it (WP:RMUM), the article is back at its old title now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 July 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by OP (non-admin closure) Astropulse (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI → Ouster of Sam Altman from OpenAI OR Dismissal of Sam Altman from OpenAI is also preferred Most reliable sources have used the word fired or ousted or pushed out. https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-co-founder-who-helped-oust-sam-altman-leaves-the-company-ed51c6f5 https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/29/former-openai-board-member-explains-why-ceo-sam-altman-was-fired.html https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/17/23965982/openai-ceo-sam-altman-fired https://www.wsj.com/tech/sam-altman-departs-open-ai-mira-murati-interim-ceo-41f6d51e

Dismissal can be used as well. SEE https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod , https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2020_dismissal_of_inspectors_general

The term “Ouster” often carries a stronger connotation than “Removal,” implying a forcible or abrupt expulsion, sometimes with an element of conflict or controversy.


Ouster: This word suggests a dramatic, perhaps contentious action, hinting at underlying conflicts or significant dissatisfaction that led to Sam Altman’s departure. “Ouster” implies that Sam Altman did not leave by choice and that there was a significant push from other stakeholders within OpenAI

Removal: This term is more neutral and can imply a routine or procedural change without the same level of drama or conflict. “Removal” could be interpreted as a more mutual or administrative decision, which might not convey the full extent of the situation if it was indeed contentious


In summary, most reliable sources uses the word Ouster, and is a more appropriate term that conveys a sense of urgency and conflict, making it a more compelling choice for a headline about Sam Altman’s departure from OpenAI, especially because the circumstances were controversial and abrupt. Astropulse (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Removal_of_Sam_Altman_from_OpenAI&oldid=1252541140"