Thanks for a great writeup Zvi!

My overall takeaways:

1. It seems the new board will pay close attention to Sam/Greg/others in terms of making sure information is shared in timely manner for the board to make smart decisions.

I think the next few months of board additions will tell us where it is headed for AI governance of the for-profit

2. Personally, I have not been concerned about AGI in the next few years, and it seems even many of the folks who worry in general, agree with that sentiment (based on some of the tweets I saw). I'm in CS but not ML (though I do follow it) and my guess is 10ish years.

I do still want to hear what Ilya was so worried about, but currently my guess is the "attitude" towards new tech rather than the "capabilities" of this particular tech

3. Who knew Twitter would make such a comeback?

Well, seems like the board did provide zero evidence in private, too! https://twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/1727228431396704557

Quite the saga: glad it is over and think that Larry Summers is a great independent thinker that could help the board make some smart expansion decisions

It is not clear, in the non--profit structure of a board, that Helen cannot vote on her own removal.

The vote to remove Sam may have been some trickery around holding a quorum meeting without notifying Sam or Greg.

The board could (justifiably based on Sam's incredible mobilization the past days**) believe that they have little to no chance of winning the war of public opinion and focus on doing everything privately since that is where they feel on equal footing.

This doesn't explain fully why they haven't stated reasons in private, but it does seem they provided at least something to Emmett Shear as he said he had a reason from the board that wasn't safety or commercialization (PPS of https://twitter.com/eshear/status/1726526112019382275)

** Very few fires employees would even consider pushing back, but to be this successful this quickly is impressive. Not taking a side on it being good or evil, just stating the fact of his ability to fight back after things seemed gloom (betting markets were down below 10%)

While I don't think this is true, it's a fun thought (and can also be pointed at Altman himself, rather than an AGI). Neither are true, but fun to think about

My guess is they feel that Sam and Greg (and maybe even Ilya) will provide enough of a safety net (compared to a randomized Board overlord) but also a large dose of self-interest once it gains steam and you know many of your coworkers will leave

Interesting! Bad at politics is a good way to put it. So you think this was purely a political power move to remove Sam, and they were so bad at projecting the outcomes, all of them thought Greg would stay on board as President and employees would largely accept the change.