zlacker

They may have had the votes, but they didn't have the finesse and they may have forgotten who their ultimate paymasters are, regardless of the non-profit. Note that another 10 people or so have just as much power as the board (the key people behind all of the AI work) and three of those had already walked. That's a very powerful signal that they mis-handled this.

>>jacque+(OP)
3 out of 7, which is roughly a 1/3.

Which is to say, they were likely Altman supporters. Which is fine! They’re free to do as they wish.

However if that’s it (and it does remain to be seen if more happens or not) than 2/3 of folks stand by the decision, which would match with the board votes

>>no_wiz+83
So then the question is: how much weight do these votes actually carry because if the votes are by people who in turn don't have much support themselves (both within, employees, other board members and without, shareholders in the for-profit, donors and founders, then they can fire the CEO but they may not be able to make it stick if it isn't for an extremely good reason.

I haven't seen that reason yet, though I don't rule out one exists and even then you'd have to do this in a way that it doesn't ruffle the feathers of your ultimate paymasters. Being a board members of a large company is an exercise in diplomacy, not in bull-in-a-china-store level incompetence.