[nostromo]

It's more "how" than "who" (although "who" also matters)

If the board talked to Altman and said, "hey this is the wrong direction" or "it's moving too fast." Then if they'd given him a chance to adjust. And only if they were unable to agree after a reasonable time, then they crafted a plan to responsibly change leadership after a transition period, that'd probably be fine.

But instead they just bounced him randomly and called him a liar publicly without any thought on who would step in. Who would want to work for them?

[SilverBirch]

I think to a certain extent they knew how weak they were. They knew if it turned into a long drawn out protracted fight in public it would be bad for them. You can imagine it now - David Sacks going on a long rant about how they don't have skin in the game and they're woke etc. etc. What the board was there to do - act as a check on the for-profit part of the company, goes basically directly against what most people in silicon valley want. So I don't think it's unreasonable that they thought they needed to move before Sam shored up support from investors etc.

[Obscurity4340]

He's honestly a bit more "sympathetic" than this incorporeal Board even thought there is innuendo he's awful and there's obviously accusations re:sister altho she seems a little waffley based on what I've resd about her comments on the matter