And the board was ridiculous thinking they could demote him and have him stick around. That was either weirdly short-sighted or strategic theater. I kind of think it might have been the former.

They knew he was going to leave. It's likely a combination of the following:

1. They couldn't fire him as an employee (or felt it was an overreach of their mandate)

2. They wanted to signal a clear distinction that they lost faith in him as Chairman, while not losing faith in his work as an employee.

3. They felt like it would play better with the company if his ultimate departure was his decision rather than theirs.

They don’t have to pay him an exit fee.

I doubt they care about this. This move already signals they're not optimizing for financial outcomes, and the independent board members (3/4 involved in this decision) have no equity in OpenAI.

My take is, Sam and Greg are not the executives they want people to think they are. This was recognized, and they got upset because of this, and things shook out this way.

Over the past decade, I've never heard a single bad thing about Sam or Greg from anyone who has worked with them.

The board may know something nobody else does, but I think (given the current information) it's significantly more likely that they _are_ who they purport to be... it's just that the board wanted something different.

I haven't either, but have you seen many people share their experience of working with him? I haven't.

I've worked directly with Sam on a few projects, and was always impressed by how thoughtful and empathetic he was. I've worked with a number of smart, wealthy people, and Sam is the only one I'd say that about.

Thanks!