To check them does not overlap with 'to destroy them at the first opportunity'. There is no way that this board decision - which now is only supported by three of the original nine board members - is going to survive absent a very clear and unambiguous reason that shows that their only remedy was to fire the CEO. This sort of thing you don't do by your gut feeling, you go by the book.

> no way that this board decision...is going to survive absent a very clear and unambiguous reason that shows that their only remedy was to fire the CEO

The simplest explanation is Altman said he wasn't going to do something and then did it. At that point, even a corporate board would have cause for termination. Of course, the devil is in the details, and I doubt we'll have any of them this week. But more incredulous than the board's decision is the claim that it owes any duty to its for-profit subsidiary's employees, who aren't even shareholders, but some profit-sharing paper's holders.

True, but then the board would have been able to get rid of the controversy on the spot by spelling out their reasoning. Nobody would fault them. But that didn't happen, and even one of the people that voted for Altmans' removal has backtracked. So this is all extremely murky and suspicious.

If they had a valid reason they should spell it out. But my guess is that reason, assuming it exists, will just open them up to more liability and that is why it isn't given.

> But more incredulous than the board's decision is the claim that it owes any duty to its for-profit subsidiary's employees, who aren't even shareholders, but some profit-sharing paper's holders.

Technically they took over the second they fired Altman so they have no way to pretend they have no responsibility. Shareholders and employees of the for-profit were all directly affected by this decision, the insulating properties of a non-profit are not such that you can just do whatever you want and get away with it.

> the board would have been able to get rid of the controversy on the spot by spelling out their reasoning

I don't think they have an obligation to do this publicly.

> even one of the people that voted for Altmans' removal has backtracked

I don't have a great explanation for this part of it.

> Shareholders and employees of the for-profit were all directly affected by this decision, the insulating properties of a non-profit are not such that you can just do whatever you want and get away with it

We don't know. This is truly novel structure and law. That said, the board does have virtually carte blanche if Altman lied or if they felt he was going to end humanity or whatever. Literally the only thing that could go for the employees is if there are, like, text messages between board members conspiring to tank the value of the company for shits and giggles.

Capriciousness and board membership are not compatible. The firing of a CEO of a massively successful company is something that requires deliberation and forethought, you don't do that just because you have a bad hairday. So their reasons matter a lot.

What I think is happening is that the reason they had sucks, that the documents they have create more liability and that they have a real problem in that one of the gang of four is now a defector so there is a fair chance this will all come out. It would not surprise me if the remaining board members end up in court if Altman decides to fight his dismissal, which he - just as surprising - so far has not done.

So there is enough of a mess to go around for everybody but what stands out to me is that I don't see anything from the board that would suggest that they acted with the kind of forethought and diligence required of a board. And that alone might be enough to get them into trouble: you don't sit on a board because you're going off half-cocked, you sit on a board because you're a responsible individual that tries to weigh the various interests and outcomes and you pick the one that makes the most sense to you and you are willing to defend that decision.

So far they seem to believe they are beyond accountability. That - unfortunately for them - isn't the case but it may well be they escape the dance because nobody feels like suing them. But I would not be surprised at all if that happened and if it does I hope they have their house in order, board liability is a thing.

> which he - just as surprising - so far has not done

There were so many conflicts of interests at that firm, I'm not unsurprised by it, either.

> I don't see anything from the board that would suggest that they acted with the kind of forethought and diligence required of a board

We don't know the back-and-forth that led up to this. That's why I'm curious about how quiet one side has been, while the other seemingly launched a coast-to-coast PR campaign. If there had been ongoing negotiations between Altman and others, and then Altman sprung a surprise that went against that agreement entirely, decisive action isn't unreasonable. (Particularly when they literally don't have to consider shareholder value, seemingly by design.)

> they seem to believe they are beyond accountability

Does OpenAI still have donors? Trustees?

I suppose I'm having trouble getting outraged over this. Nobody was duped. The horrendous complexity of the organization was panned from the beginning. Employees and investors just sort of ignored that there was this magic committee at the top of every org chart that reported to "humanity" or whatever.

Agreed, there are a ton of people that should have exercised more caution and care. But it is first and foremost the board's actions that have brought OpenAI to the edge of the abyss and that wasn't on the table a month ago. That that can have consequences for the parties that caused it seems to me to be above question, after all, you don't become board members of a non-profit governing an entity worth billions just to piss it all down the drain and pretend that was just fine.

I totally understand that you can't get outraged over it, neither am I (I've played with ChatGPT but it's nowhere near solid enough for my taste and I don't know anybody working there and don't particularly like either Altman or Microsoft). But I don't quite understand why people seem to think that because this is a non-profit (which to me always seemed to be a fig-leaf to pretend to regulators and governments that they had oversight) anything goes. Not in the world that I live in, you take your board member duties seriously or it is better if you aren't a board member at all.

The OpenAI nonprofit it not on the edge of the abyss and the board has brought it no closer to being there. If the board thinks the mission of "bringing about AGI which benefits all of humanity unrestricted by concerns of generating revenue" is not best served by productizing LLMs into revenue generating products then a mass resignation of its wholly controlled for profit subsidiary saves them the trouble and cost of a mass layoff.

The board has a massive conflict of interest in that they are also controlling all of the other entities and that alone means that they can't hide behind the purported mission of the non-profit. And even then they may well have to explain to a judge why they thought this hastily taken decision was in line with that mission. I don't see it happening.

But all of that has already been covered upthread. Multiple times.