>The board's mandate to act as a check and balance on OpenAI seems to be working as intended in this case I'd argue it's not. If the board isn't able to steer

>The board's mandate to act as a check and balance on OpenAI seems to be working as intended in this case I'd argue it's not. If the board isn't able to steer the wheel without destroying OpenAI, they failed. The premise of something like OpenAI is that they would be able to develop a competitive AI that can be useful for the masses, in a way that can be moderated by benevolent forces. If you do believe the safety of the entire human race is at stake here, then there's no space for naivete. Blowing things up is childish and taking an easy escape from the heavy responsibilities of navigating a difficult situation. After this fiasco you should expect that much, much fewer resources will be spent on safe AI as opposed to maximizing profit. The dynamics between the board and the ex-CEO will make it much more difficult to establish an organization that can convince investors to pursue a less profitable path for the sake of humanity. Anthropic doesn't even have a competitive product, and it will probably be much less attractive to investors after this.