No. No it isn't.

The board-aligned argument seems to be "destroying the company is the right thing to do if it helps the cause of AI alignment".

Whereas the pro-Altman side seems to be "if you have the most successful startup since Google/Facebook, you shouldn't blow it up merely because of vague arguments about << alignment >> ".

Your pro-Altman means that the argument should be won by Altman side, just because it’s a successful startup, while in reality, it’s a non-profit with a mission, which contradicts Altman’s position (according to the article).

> "if you have the most successful startup since Google/Facebook, you shouldn't blow it up"

... But they aren't the ones blowing it up? Firing one guy, even the CEO, isn't blowing it up. The only side that directly threatened "if you don't do X, we blow it up" was the pro-Altman side.