Exactly. So much of the commentary surrounding this is assuming that the board is motivated to act like the board of a startup, and therefore what they've done is amateurish because it would kill a startup. But the remaining members of the board are all very clearly not invested in OpenAI becoming an insanely profitable company—they're on the board of a nonprofit, in charge of the mission and the charter, not in charge of maximizing profit.
I'm sure that there are things they could have done better even with that context, but I think most of the confusion stems from people on here not understanding the motivations of these people.
I'm sure that there are things they could have done better even with that context, but I think most of the confusion stems from people on here not understanding the motivations of these people.