[jesselawson]

I’m not sure I understand the analogy. To me there’s a difference between a former intelligence general being courted by a private company that sells services for rapidly and semi-autonomously generating content that bad actors have used and will likely continue to use for influencing geopolitical public sentiment, and a pharmaceutical company that does not sell similar technology.

[dialup_sounds]

The point is that anybody can make baseless insinuations about what a board appointment means that have nothing to do with the actual qualifications of the person.

[jesselawson]

Perhaps others may make inferences about what a board appointment to a company with growing influence in government security matters means based on the appointee’s history in government security leadership.

[dialup_sounds]

Right!

Like how some of OpenAI's current challenges include a) not leaking everything they create to the PRC and b) not having their tools abused for disinformation campaigns, so they appointed someone with leadership experience in keeping secrets from the PRC and combating disinformation campaigns.

Or did you mean "NSA man bad"?

[K0balt]

This is a salient counterpoint and seems like a reasonable alternative explanation for the appointment. Thank you for that!