Almost more of a "takeover" by the board after it's successful lol

OpenAI hasn't made billions in profits. Their operating costs are huge and I'm pretty sure they're heavily reliant on outside funding.

Which puts into question the whole non-profitness anyway, but that aside:

They have still been operating pretty much like a for-profit for years now so my point still stands.

Your point hinged on billions in profit. Which you just made up, or assumed to be true for some reason. I don't think any of your points stand. Don't use fact you haven't checked as preconditions for points you want to make.

Conceded, no billions in profit.

Now let's watch as the amazing non-profit champions from the board cut all revenue from GPT-based services by offering them for free because they so truthfully believe in their words. I'm waiting.

Again, conjecture with no supporting evidence.

Not sure what you're trying to say.

Clearly, under Altman, OpenAI has been massively successful one way or another, correct?

Now they boot him and claim moral superiority? Really?

I mean, as far as I know the guy hasn't written a single line of code.

A non-profit doesn’t have to offer their services for free, they can cover their expenses.

A profit driven company will often offer their services below cost in order to chase away the competition and capture users.

Right.

Which is why the board's accusations against Sam are a farce as far as we can see.

Have they gotten specific yet? Last I heard was the whole “not sufficiently candid” thing, which is really nebulous; hard to call it a farce really. It is a “to be continued.”

I’m going to wait and see before I get too personally attached to any particular position.

To think that "Non-Profit" means "Free" is pretty naive. There are operating costs to maintain millions of users. That doesn't mean they are trying to profit.

Exactly.

So what's Sam's crime exactly, trying to cover the costs?

Three other board members stepped down this year. It might not have been possible before.

Ofc it's "not possible" in that it may incur personal costs.

But it's the honorable thing to do if you truly believe in something.

Otherwise it's just virtue signalling.

No, they may literally have not had the votes.