Their actions were reckless and irresponsible. They are currently picking their successors. The incompetence is staggering regardless of motive.

We're still waiting for the explanations from Altman about the alleged involvement in spending time on conflicting companies while he is CEO at OpenAI.

According to FT this could be the cause for the firing:

“Sam has a company called Oklo, and [was trying to launch] a device company and a chip company (for AI). The rank and file at OpenAI don’t dispute those are important. The dispute is that OpenAI doesn’t own a piece. If he’s making a ton of money from companies around OpenAI there are potential conflicts of interest.”

I don’t see how that factors in. What matters is OpenAI’s enterprise customers reading about a boardroom coup in the WSJ. Completely avoidable destruction of value.

This is toatlly irrelevant to the board's initial decision though.

I think what people in this thread and others are trying to say is that to run a organization like OpenAI you need lots and lots funding. AI research is incredibly costly due to highly paid researchers and an ungodly amount of GPU resources. To put all current funding at risk by pissing off current investors and enterprise customers puts the whole mission of the organization at risk. That's where the perceived incompetence comes from no mater how good the intentions are.

Exactly. Add to that the personal smearing of one person and it seems like a very unnecessarily negative maneuver.

I understand that. What is missing is the purpose of running such an organisation. OpenAI has achieved a lot, but is it going to the direction and towards the purpose it was founded on? I do not see how one can argue that. For a non-profit, creating value is a means to a goal, not a goal in itself (as opposed to a for-profit org). People thinking that the problem of this move is that it destroys value for openAI showcase the real issue perfectly.

It is a complete departure from past stated means without clear justification.

Some would say it is the opposite way around. Mission of openAI was not supposed to be maximising profit/value. Especially if it can be argued that this exactly goes against its original purpose.

Isn’t it amazing how companies worry about lowly, ordinary employees moonlighting, but C-suiters and board members being involved in several ventures is totally normal?

It is hard to negotiate when the investors and for-profit part basically has much more power. They tried to bring them in front of a fait accompli situation, as this was their only chance, but they seem to have failed. I do not think they had a better move in the current situation right now, sadly.

Why’d they smear Sam? Couldn’t they have released a statement saying they just don’t see eye to eye anymore?

You do not fire a CEO because you hold some personal grudges towards them. You fire them because they do something wrong. And I do not see any evidence or indication of smearing Altman, unless they lie about (ie I do not see any indication of them lying about it).