Could be, but words on Twitter and no lawsuit don't really equal getting ejected from your CEO position. Imagine if CEOs got ejected for stuff akin to that, there'd be no CEOs left.

As I used the word "appears", I am postulating based on how the company is controlled, the non-profit entity, as well as certain statements that board members have made in the past such as Ilya Sutskever (now ex-board??), whose thoughts have likely been influenced by his mentor Geoffrey Hinton who is quoted on 60 Minutes saying the AI is about to be "more intelligent than us". Ilya is known for, beyond his scientific endeavors into AI and his position of Chief Scientist of OpenAI, some odd behavior on his commitment to AI safety though I'm sure his beliefs come from the right place.

There's a lot more to this, for each board member and Sam, but it makes me believe that a large wall was erected in information leading to a paranoid board.

I mean, the non-profit board appears, at current glance, to have fired the CEO for their paranoid-delusional beliefs, that this LLM is somehow a real AGI and we are already at a point of a thinking, learning, AI.

Just delusional grandeur on behalf of the board, or they didn't and don't understand what is really going on, which might be why they fired the CEO: for not informing the board, truly, what level OpenAI's AI is actually at. So the board was trying to reign in a beast that is merely a puppy, with information that was wrong.

No I know exactly what I was replying to.

If it doesn't matter who we vote for, who would you vote for? Who has the balls?