I think this assessment is a likely accurate story. But I disagree on the takeaway and predictions. > The current structure of a non-profit board without much

I think this assessment is a likely accurate story. But I disagree on the takeaway and predictions. > The current structure of a non-profit board without much else in place should not be running a critically important company like OpenAI. This seems insane, given the alternative of running it like your typical YC startup. > I believe that the longer-term problem of safe AI is important, but you don’t do that with sudden shakeups of the founder and an exodus of half of the employees. OpenAI has been doing something special for a long time, beating the likes of better-funded research organizations like Google or Microsoft. It’s probably in everyone’s best interest to keep the team together. I'm so curious about all these takes about everybody leaving if Altman is out. And it's weird to support it by talking about the long-time specialness that existed before Altman was so day-to-day involved, and that has been under tension for a long time too (see all the departures that lead to Anthropic existing). They didn't oust him out of nowhere. The schism is there and either side winning doesn't magically make for unity. I have no idea which side I'd root for, but these takes that the board massively screwed up all look very one-sided, ignoring the disagreements over the massive pivot openai has undergone in recent years. I'd bet we see lots of people on the "losing" side leave openai over the next months regardless of the outcome.