[leroy_masochist]

> the board (at least what remains) seems to disagree strongly with the direction in which the organization was headed

Yeah that is clearly the case, but when you have a situation where four of the six board members execute a coup against the two most powerful and important board members (the CEO and the chair), the company looks like a shitshow and nobody is going to want to work there or partner with them, at least until they are able to present a credible narrative about what they did (which may never happen).

Totally get the fact that the four remaining board members didn't like where things were headed, but their actions yesterday created a tremendous amount of collateral damage that will massively impede OpenAI in its journey toward whatever new azimouth they choose.

[logifail]

> a situation where four of the six board members execute a coup against the two most powerful and important board members (the CEO and the chair), the company looks like a shitshow

Umm, if it's "one human, one vote" then the board was working exactly as designed.

Being "important" may not save your job. Been there, done that.

[aluminum96]

I don't think total organizational chaos and fracture is "exactly as designed." The board was designed to have independent veto power in the name of ethical AGI, but they broke the emergency glass for apparently no real reason.

[tcbawo]

No real reason … that has been communicated thus far.

[leroy_masochist]

Right, my point here is that the "design" of the board here raises a lot of questions.

Board charters are often written so that this kind of thing doesn't happen - especially in the case of startups with small boards and charismatic founders.

[maeil]

> and nobody is going to want to work there or partner with them

Before this I wasn't interested in joining OpenAI despite having seen colleagues jump ship to them, but I now very much am. It works both ways.