zlacker

>>prawn+(OP)
Poe AI is just a clear straight conflict, no question there.

On the governance matter, the thesis is a bit more shakey.

  > Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley... participating in an... AI governance organization... calls into question the independence of their votes.

  > I am not accusing anyone (to be clear, even the Board Directors that I consider conflicted) of having acted subject to conflicts of interest. [AKA "Just Asking Questions" technique]

  > If... this act of governance was unwise, it calls into serious question the ability of these people and their organizations... to conduct governance

So they're conflicted because they're also in governance, and they shouldn't govern because they might have been conflicted.

It seems like the author's real problem isn't any specific conduct by these two board members, but more of a "you got chocolate in my peanut butter" issue.

>>schiff+v6
You don't have to actually act on your conflict of interest to be conflicted. It's enough to have the conflict of interest in the first place and that should be reason enough to resign. In fact: most board of directors realize this without being told and in case that they don't realize it there is usually a nice and handy document that they signed upon becoming a member of the board that pointedly reminds them of this fact.