But that's the problem, the board's mission was doomed from the get-go. Their mission isn't to be "in the interest of the company" but "in the interest of humanity" i.e. if they believe OpenAI at its pace would destroy humanity, then their mission is literally to destroy OpenAI itself.

"The board's mission became to destroy OpenAI itself" is ... less sane? ... than everything else that has happened.

But not that insane if they (the board) think the other side of the scale is "AGI that will destroy humanity"

Aligning to their goal of "protecting humanity" would mean killing OpenAI would slow down AGI development, theoretically allowing effective protections to be put into place. And it might set an example assisting the mission at other companies. But slowing down responsible development gives militaries and states of concern a lead in the race, which are the entities where the main concern should lie.

> if they believe OpenAI at its pace would destroy humanity, then their mission is literally to destroy OpenAI itself.

I'd say most people have as much faith in LessWrong eschatology as they do with Christian nationalist eschatology. I can understand how a true believer might want to destroy the company to stop the AI gods they believe in, or shut off ChatGPT every Sunday to avoid living in sin. But it can be an issue when you start viewing your personal beliefs as fundamental truths.

There's something nicely secular about profit motives. I'm not sure I want technological advancement to be under the control of any religious belief.

These true believers serve a higher calling. Only they can prevent an AIpocalpse.

Lucky us that we have such enlightened people to save us. /s