This is really, really clearly incestuous tech media stuff as part of a pressure campaign. Sam is the darlin of tech media and he's clearly instigated this reporting because they're reporting his thoughts and not the Board's in an article that purports to know what the Board is thinking, the investors who aren't happy (the point of a non-profit is that they are allowed to make investors unhappy in pursuit of the greater mission!) have an obvious incentive to join him in this pressure campaign, and then all he needs for "journalism" is one senior employee who's willing to leave for Sam to instead say to the Verge that the Board is reconsidering. Boom, massive pressure campaign and perception of the Board flip flopping without them doing any such thing. If they had done any such thing and there was proof of that, the Verge could have quoted the thoughts of anyone on the Board, stated it had reviewed communications and verified they were genuine, etc.
A non-profit isn’t supposed to have investors. This structure should never have been allowed in the first place (nor IKEA.)
What remains to be seen is just how closely the board holds the charter to their hearts and whether the governance structure that was built is strong enough to withstand this.
Never been a fan of the “you can’t complain about any bad outcome you agreed could happen” argument.
But if you sign an agreement saying you understand you should treat your investments more like donations and that everything is secondary to the goals of the non-profit and then are upset that your goals were not placed in higher priority than the charter of the non-profit, I'm going to reserve the right to think you're a hypocrite.
Microsoft nor anyone else said they deeply believed in and prioritized OpenAI’s charter over their own interests. They might have agreed to it, and they must abide by agreements, but this is not a case of claiming one set of principles while acting contrary to them.