zlacker

There have been a few stories which sound like he may have had the opportunity to come back but that negotiations over board control etc (which is pretty unsurprising) broke down[1].

Even setting that aside for a second, that doesn't change my essential point that the board doesn't necessarily have all the autonomy it thinks it has. There are for sure repercussions to this - they may have to make concessions. Some of the seemingly committed funding may be unpaid and the donors may have the ability to invoke MAC clauses and similar to pull it. Even if that turns out not to be the case, the way this has played out will certainly affect decisions about future donations etc.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/20/sam-altma...

>>seanhu+(OP)
> There have been a few stories which sound like he may have had the opportunity to come back but that negotiations over board control etc (which is pretty unsurprising) broke down[1].

Thus disproving your point, in my opinion. There may now be consequences to the board's decision that make their company less powerful in the future, but it won't be because they lacked the autonomy to make their own decisions. Getting to discover the consequences of your preferences is what autonomy is.