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
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.
It’s not a business. It’s not competing for business. It’s a charity.
Like if you’re on the board of a charity fighting cancer is it a conflict to be on a board of another charity fighting AIDS? Or also part of a for profit company fighting cancer?
Of course not. You’d have a conflict of interest if you had a relationship that was opposed to the charity’s mission like a tobacco company, or if you were personally profiting off your role with the charity.
The post here doesn’t articulate why these are conflicts of interest.
This thread and all the other 15 threads about all this start with the tacit assumption that OpenAI is a high growth tech company, with investors and customers and founders and so on.
It’s not. It’s a charity.