I genuinely can't believe the board didn't see this coming. I think they could have won in the court of public opinion if their press release said they loved Sam but felt like his skills and ambitions diverged from their mission. But instead, they tried to skewer him, and it backfired completely.
I hope Sam comes back. He'll make a lot more money if he doesn't, but I trust Sam a lot more than whomever they ultimately replace him with. I just hope that if he does come back, he doesn't use it as a chance to consolidate power – he's said in the past it's a good thing the board can fire him, and I hope he finds better board members rather than eschewing a board altogether.
EDIT: Yup, Satya is involved https://twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/1726025717077688662
Maybe we have different definitions of "the court of public opinion". Most people don't know who Sam Altman is, and most of the people who do know don't have strong opinions on his performance as OpenAI's CEO. Even on HN, the reaction to the board "skwer[ing] him" has been pretty mixed, and mostly one of confusion and waiting to see what else happens.
This quick a turnaround does make the board look bad, though.
Sure, the average person doesn't care about Sam. But among the people who matter, Sam certainly came out on top.
If this (very sparse and lacking in detail) article is true, is this a genuine attempt to get Altman back or just a filip to concerned investors such as Microsoft?
Does OpenAI's board really want Altman back so soon after deposing him so decisively?
Would Altman even want to come back under any terms that would be acceptable to the board? If "significant governance changes" means removing those who had removed him, that seems unlikely.
The Verge's report just raises so many additional questions that I find it difficult to believe at face value.