I only skimmed through the beginning but I am not sure what the news is. Looks like they mostly/only? pulled it from some filings that I am sure was being put together by third party agents.
Yes, but this comes with the assumption that Sam writes and reviews the website copy, PR statements and S1 form submissions, which any organization of significant size, the CEO does not.
Why do I get the feeling that if it said something bad they would have fixed it before somebody wrote an article about it...
And if they can't be trusted to get their own team biographies right, what can they get right?
If a run-of-the mill employee were lying about their experience, they'd be fired. But it's okay for the CEO because he's just so busy? What a double standard.
Did they use their own product to write the bio, and it "hallucinated" that he was chairman?
I saw the same odd excuse deployed for the aggressive NDAs he was embarrassed to find out happened
I think it's a mix of feels good to feel empathetic and say gee prolly just slipped by him, things slip by me, and then without interlocutors, could we ever have discussion? But it's an odd one
You would be reading your CFO or lawyer's summary of the important points. In this case, the only important point is probably literally just "We filed the S-1, everything went normally".
Do you use an accountant to file your taxes? Do you read the entire tax document they submit, or do you just look at their summary of "after this much in deductions, you owe this much"?
If you do read the document in full, good on you, but I assure you most people don't, in the same way that most CEOs don't read every single document the company's lawyer produces.
Yes I do in fact read those things, every VP or above that I know does too. A meeting covers high points that doesn’t mean you don’t have to do your homework.
Its assumed that many many people involved in an already really cloaked investment vehicle know that Sam is not. Thats the point. Not that Sam wrote it, that the organization signed off on it.
It would be hilarious if some intern used ChatGPT to write the copy for the SPAC website and it hallucinated based off of being trained on the SEC filings.
I guess I don’t see the issue. The SPAC materials are largely pointless and immaterial until an acquisition is made. Purely a guess but I would assume they put these materials together when perhaps the board position was in play. Maybe he was fabricating it but it’s mostly a shrug moment for the SEC.
Your distorted view of Altman is probably causing you to go down the wrong path of securities law.
1) I don't believe even if malicious this would be a criminal case that leads to jail time.
2) The s-1 filings are prepared and audited by third party companies.
3) Most likely in this case, these positions are listed to outline any potential conflicts of interest. I am not well read on the matter but I could see that you would list potential engagements to note the conflict of interest even if they are not finalized.
That’s not really the point. The point is that this disclosure is immaterial to the spac and might have been true or in process to being true at the time of filing. Nothing will come of this other than a handful of people getting upset.
How do you miss the main point? The SPAC materials are immaterial until an acquisition is made. Plenty of things to not like about Altman but this is not one of them.
> Who is supposedly at risk of being fired if not the person who wrote the document?
The one who stands to benefit from the lie. In the case of the ordinary Joe that is of course one and the same; he can't afford to hire someone to delegate his CV faking to. But just because the bigshots can offload “trivial” tasks like that onto someone else doesn't make the moral responsibility anyone else's than their own.
Suggesting the one who should be fired is the office slave who actually typed the hype is
1) As absurd as Joe Schmoe claiming it isn't he, but the pen he signed his faked CV with that should be fired; and
2) A sign of a wholly non-functional moral compass.
> It's not a lie, it's a trivial mistake done by whoever was drafting the document.
Yeah, let's see the regular Joe Schmoe get away with how he didn't lie on his CV, it was just “a trivial mistake done by whoever was drafting the document.”
That mistake is that it's not true. Altman has earned a name for himself in the truth-telling/transparency department. He wasn't briefly sacked for his fashion sense.
In the article they quote Marc Fagel, who previously served as the regional director for the SEC's office in San Francisco:
"Misstating the qualifications of executives is something the SEC takes seriously,"
