> let's imagine, the board wants to detonate a nuclear bomb. In the case of OpenAI, it was Altman, not the board members he should have been arguing his positi

> let's imagine, the board wants to detonate a nuclear bomb. In the case of OpenAI, it was Altman, not the board members he should have been arguing his position with openly, who wanted to undertake actions that others thought were too risky. So your argument, if it were valid, would not apply to Altman, but to the other OpenAI board members whose confidence in him had been destroyed. Do you think they should have lied to Altman to get him to stop doing things they thought were too risky?