>> Sam wanted to restrict Helen's free expression.

> No, Sam wanted to be the first recipient of Helen's expression.

If I get copy approval to what you write, that is by definition a restriction to your freedom of expression. How is this up for debate?

You don't normally perform you role as a board member through publications in a public forum. You do it by exercising pressure internally to get the effect you desire so you can continue to do so in the future. Going public is usually a one-shot affair.

Being a co-author of that publication was not her performing her role as an OpenAI board member, it was her day job.

Conflicts of interest suck. Experienced board members avoid them or deal with them. They don't allow their conflicts of interest to spiral out of control to the point that they destroy the thing they're supposed to govern.

> Conflicts of interest suck. Experienced board members avoid them or deal with them.

Agreed. It seems remarkable that she dealt with her conflict of interest so thoroughly that she published an article that was mildly critical of the organization. I do not think her duty was to let Sam Altman seize power by firing her from the board on a flimsy pretext, though.

She went a bit further than that.

Did Helen's publication conflict with the charter though?

I'd say the OpenAI employees are the ones with the conflict of interest, since they stand to get rich if the company does well, independent of whether the charter is being upheld.

No, it did not conflict. But that doesn't mean you first try to get things fixed rather than to publish.

> I'd say the OpenAI employees are the ones with the conflict of interest, since they stand to get rich if the company does well, independent of whether the charter is being upheld.

Those pesky employees again. Too bad we still need them. But after AGI is a fact we don't and then it'll be a brave new world.

It’s interesting that people are making the assumption Toner didn’t raise these concerns internally as well.

My interpretation of that was that Sam felt Helen's duty as a board member is to come to the company with her complaints, and work to improve the safety measures.

> So -- if appropriate -- he could make changes.

Where are you drawing this conclusion from? Nothing in the text suggests that was his intent - certainly his actions thereafter suggest that he was in fact more concerned with the potential harm to the for-profit company.

The journalist failed to make that point really clear. He "reprimanded" her "and" said "it was dangerous to the company". What exactly did he "reprimand" her for? The "and" seems to imply two separate points of criticism.

>In the email, Mr. Altman said that he had reprimanded Ms. Toner for the paper and that it was dangerous to the company, particularly at a time, he added, when the Federal Trade Commission was investigating OpenAI over the data used to build its technology.

The normal operation of every human relationship.

Let's recall the CEO is employed by the board, not the other way around.

Is Sam a member of her faculty? Or an advisor?

Otherwise I'm not sure what changes would be "appropriate" for him to direct.