The "disagreement" was never dealt with as far as I can tell --- OpenAI's safety approach hasn't become more conservative --- which means that the only effect of bringing it to the CEO beforehand was to try to have it suppressed.

Hard to defend this level of flex, though:

> Mr. Altman, the chief executive, recently made a move to push out one of the board’s members because he thought a research paper she had co-written was critical of the company.

It's like your job is to fire me if I fail to fulfill the company mission, but I will fire you if you don't get my approval before saying stuff in public.

Keep in mind Altman was also a board member with senior tenure to Toner, and basically hired her to the board.

No, she replaced Holden Karnofsky, who was almost certainly the one to pick her.

Why is that? I didn't think outgoing board members got to control who replaced them.

Other board members elect replacements iirc

Who, it's worth mentioning, got a seat because Open Philanthropy donated $30 million to OpenAI early in its creation.

Pledged $30 million, $10 million per year for three years, but most likely only $20 million received. Elon Musk gave $40 million. There is also $70 million in mystery "other income" in the 990's that is missing the required explanation (nature and source.)

OpenAI is operated at a public charity and is required to meet a "public support test" of 33%, so Musk could not have given his $40 million without the $20 million from Open Philanthropy, an EA supported public charity. In fact, most of Open Philanthropy's money went to OpenAI.

Public charities are also required to have less than a majority of the board be employees or relatives of employees. For a while, after Elon Musk was removed, Holden Karnofsky of Open Philanthropy was the only non-employee on the board.

Sam could never have a selective memory about such a thing...