That's fine, but the OpenAI founders (including Sam Altman![1]) explicitly had in mind "AI kills everyone" as one of the main problems they were attempting to tackle when they started the organization. (Obviously starting OpenAI as a solution to this problem was a terrible mistake, but given that they did so, having a board charged with pulling the plug is better than not having that.)

[1] https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1

That whole charter is bullshit. You don't invite Microsoft to the party if you care about ethics and you don't disable your fail-safe by giving them full access to all of your stuff.

Hence my position that the charter was a fig leaf designed to throw regulators off.

Elsewhere in this thread you stated: "if OpenAI was 'the good guys' then any chance of the good guys getting a head start has just been blown out of the water"

So basically we have two cases here:

1. The charter is a deceptive fig leaf, OpenAI aren't the good guys. In which case blowing up OpenAI looks reasonable

2. The charter is not a fig leaf, Helen is doing the right thing by upholding it

I'd say upholding the charter is the right thing in intermediate situations as well. Basically, OpenAI are the good guys, in part, to the degree to which the board (and other stakeholders) actually uphold the charter instead of being purely profit-driven.

There's a third case:

It's #1 to some, and #2 to others.