zlacker

>>andsoi+(OP)
Not a word from Ilya. I can’t wrap my mind around his motivation. Did he really fire Sam over “AI safety” concerns? How is that remotely rational.

>>valine+v3
Because that's not the actual reason. It looks like a hostile takeover. The "king" of, arguably, the most important company in the world, got kicked out with very little effort. It's pretty extraordinary, and the power shift is extraordinary too.

>>buffer+u4
The board firing a CEO is hardly a hostile takeover.

>>yreg+17
If you fire one board member (Altman) and remove another from the board (Brockman) it's not exactly friendly either

>>surrea+n7
Firing generally isn't friendly, but no one "took over." The people who had the power exercised it. Maybe they shouldn't have, I feel no compulsion to argue on their behalf, but calling it a "takeover" isn't correct.

I think when people say "takeover" or "coup" it's because they want to convey their view of the moral character of events, that they believe it was an improper decision. But it muddies the waters and I wish they'd be more direct. "It's a coup" is a criticism of how things happened, but the substantive disagreements are actually about that it happened and why it happened.

I see lots of polarized debate any time something AI safety related comes up, so I just don't really believe that most people would feel differently if the same thing happened but the corporate structure was more conventional, or if Brockman's board seat happened to be occupied by someone who was sympathetic to ousting Altman.