I would have thought a non-profit board that puts the growth and success of their organization above the mission in their charter, even if they view the organization as going against their mission, sounds like the worst kind of board. How could that possibly be a good idea?

Isn't the whole reason we have non-profit boards and charters is so that they can make just this kind of call?

(I'm not saying that this is what is happening here -- just responding to your particular claim.)

>Isn't the whole reason we have non-profit boards and charters is so that they can make just this kind of call?

Yes. From the board. That's why we typically don't see boards air their dirty laundry out in the open even when in retrospect, they obviously had a problem with leadership.

The board seems to be getting an awful lot of crap for not saying enough, and also getting crap because their initial letter was too direct rather than being the usual corporate mealy-mouth BS.

The board is getting a lot of crap for being crap. Regardless of your opinion about their goals, their execution was objectively terrible. They were clearly completely detached from their organization. At the very least, they could have made sure their first interim CEO wouldn't instantly try to turn against them.

It's not a contradiction to criticize someone for saying too much sometimes and saying too little another time. The board should be open to insiders and cautious with external communications.

It's possible to simultaneously believe that announcing that the CEO lied to the board about x on day y is better than announcing that the CEO is leaving to spend more time with his family, but announcing that the CEO lied to the board and then refusing to elaborate when everyone including the CEO says "huh? What?" is worse than either.

This is exactly backwards. The reason we create organizations like this is not for the benefit of the organization itself, but to accomplish specific goals. Those goals are outlined in the charter. If the organization starts doing things that conflict with the charter, the responsibility of the board is to course-correct.

The place to course correct is from the board room, not in public. If she had enough power to oust the CEO, she should have enough power to pressure him to make changes.

The board can't compel the CEO to do specific things, only replace them.

Of course they can. If Sam Altman is really as heedless about AI safety as the board seems to think, GTP wouldn't be so aggressively aligned.

A misaligned AI could act aligned in the service of its interests, just like an employee trying to steal from a company would act like a good honest employee. Methods for getting AIs to visibly act a certain way aren't necessarily sufficient to control advanced AI systems.