I also read much of the paper and agree that there's nothing too bad about OpenAI in it. I question the claims the dispute was about this paper. Perhaps we are

I also read much of the paper and agree that there's nothing too bad about OpenAI in it. I question the claims the dispute was about this paper. Perhaps we are seeing the result of zero information, so like one inside of an isolation tank you have millions of people piecing together theories from what they can actually see, such as the fact that a paper exists by a board member and there's a sentence here or two which give a rationale. IMO the dispute wasn't about anything in the paper unless Altman is crazy, which seems ruled out based on his fan base. IMO it's about AGI. The board really doesn't want it and was willing to axe Altman because he is flirting with releasing a "dumbed down" version of it. This is under the assumption that AGI exists and is being kept secret, something most everyone thinks is totally insane.