I don't know nearly enough about the OpenAI situation to suggest what she should have done (apart from "not help to press the self-destruct button," with the benefit of hindsight). However, I've read a bit about EA since the SBF debacle, and a childlike naivete does seem to be baked into the DNA of many of its followers.

You would prefer that $billions be managed by the same snakes in suits who destroy the environment, market products that give people lung cancer, etc.?

You’re going to have to show me where I said that champ

Is that worse than people who defraud and steal from users and hold entire companies hostage for their own motives?

In EA, the ends always justify the means, so that includes doing any or all of the things you mention if it achieves some ideological goal.

SBF was roundly criticized in EA. The most upvoted post of all time on the EA forum is a post denouncing him: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/allPosts?timeframe=allTi...

The only person I've seen advocate "ends justify the means" in this discussion is someone criticizing Toner: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38373319

> I think OpenAI should have prioritized character more in its hiring.

I think OpenAI should have prioritized sanity more in its board member selection.

Toner is unpopular on Twitter because a lot of people in Silicon Valley have a financial stake in OpenAI. For example, employees with equity have a strong financial incentive to discredit the board: https://nitter.net/JacquesThibs/status/1727134087176204410#m

Just because you're unpopular doesn't mean you're insane.