> Over time, it has allowed a fierce competitiveness and mounting pressure for ever more funding to erode its founding ideals of transparency, openness, and collaboration
Team Helen acted in panic, but they believed they would win since they were upholding the principles the org was founded on. But they never had a chance. I think only a minority of the general public truly cares about AI Safety, the rest are happy seeing ChatGPT helping with their homework. I know it's easy to ridicule the sheer stupidity the board acted with (and justifiably so), but take a moment to think of the other side. If you truly believed that Superhuman AI was near, and it could act with malice, won't you try to slow things down a bit?
Honestly, I myself can't take the threat seriously. But, I do want to understand it more deeply than before. Maybe, it isn't without substance as I thought it to be. Hopefully, there won't be a day when Team Helen gets to say, "This is exactly what we wanted to prevent."
[1]: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/02/17/844721/ai-openai...
Things perhaps could've been different if they'd pointed to the founding principles / charter and said the board had an intractable difference of opinion with Sam over their interpretation, but then proceeded to thank him profusely for all the work he'd done. Although a suitable replacement CEO out the gate and assurances that employees' PPUs would still see a liquidity event would doubtless have been even more important than a competent statement.
Initially I thought for sure Sam had done something criminal, that's how bad the statement was.