[kmlevitt]

The whole point of this is that Microsoft doesn't even need to remove the board anymore. From their standpoint, the whole fear was openAI was about to lose a lot of their best people, including their CEO, who they had the most trusted.

That would've greatly harmed their investment Now they get to have their cake and eat it too: they can keep their existing relationship with open AI and continue to get access to their models, and yet at the same time they potentially get all the best people in-house and benefit from their work directly. This whole turn of events might turn out to be a net win for Microsoft.

[ric2b]

This whole saga will be a great demonstration of how much value a CEO does or doesn't bring to a company.

I'm of the mind that CEO's are like parents, an awful CEO can cause a lot of harm but the difference between an ok CEO and an excellent one isn't that big and doesn't guarantee anything.

[mkii]

> This whole turn of events might turn out to be a net win for Microsoft.

Given that the OpenAI board has to act via mandate from its non-profit charter, what's the likelihood that this was Microsoft's plan in the first place? E.g. getting Sam to be less than "candid", triggering a chain of events, etc.

[kmlevitt]

I think the simplest explanation is the most likely. In this case, that the hold out board members are idiots.

Even if Sam deliberately provoked them and this was a set up, no normal person would be this obstinate about it. They would’ve given up now if this was anybody’s doing but their own.

[mkii]

We still don't know what specific act the board in its initial statement refers to had triggered this, and to add fat to this theory, the interim CEO basically mentions that he had doubts but was convinced after learning what this trigger was.

[kmlevitt]

Nope. Shear is now saying he will step down as interim CEO unless the board can give a clear explanation for why they fired Altman.