Ah, he didn't realize he was getting signal boosted and edited after he got a bunch of inquiries. Under the old wording, I didn't think they had no alignment teams, but I read it as 'a new alignment team.' It makes sense under Google's general structure to have multiples, in fact it would be weird if you didn't. 

How far does this go? Does this mean if I e.g. had stupid questions or musings about Q learning, I shouldn't talk about that in public in case I accidentally hit upon something or provoked someone else to say something?

My presumption is that doing this while leaving Altman in place as CEO risks Altman engaging in hostile action, and it represents a vote of no confidence in any case. It isn't a stable option. But I'd have gamed it out?

It would be sheer insanity to have a rule that you can't vote on your own removal, I would think, or else a tied board will definitely shrink right away.

Now claim that it's up to 650/770.

Thanks.

Yeah, should have put that in the main, forgot. Added now.

Initially I saw it from Kara Swisher (~1mm views) then I saw it from a BB employee. I presume it is genuine.

I definitely do not think this is on the level of the EO or Summit. 

Vote via reactions agree or disagree (or unsure etc) to the following proposition: This post should also go on my Substack.

EDIT: Note that this is currently +5 agreement, but no one actually used a reaction (the icons available at the bottom right corner). Please use the reactions instead, this is much more useful than the +/-.