>>Their word choice however comes off as junior and not senior like using “dude” or “bs.”

Given the actions of the OpenAI board that seems to be fitting does it not? Regardless of the facts, the handling of this entire event comes off as "junior" to me

This post came out just after the board posted the original notice, but before the reasons for the removal became public. So it seems like it has too much factual detail, unknown at the time to outsiders, to be entirely fake.

It would be very easy to identify them with what they wrote if what they're saying is true (even saying they were "in the room while this all went down.").

I think it's real, but they're not as senior as they seem. Or alternatively they've taken a serious, stupid, risk as senior leadership which calls their judgement into question.

I read through and believe they are being earnest. It's still a one-sided take, but it's a side we hadn't yet heard and it makes sense. It also reinforces today's general line of thinking vis-a-vis Microsoft's involvement (not to mention the Middle Eastern tour Sam was recently on).

All that said, even if this is 100% true, if you put yourself in the shoes of one of the board members you still have difficult decisions to make. If Sam, especially with Greg's support, believed he could run things dictatorially, then it is/was up to the board to decide how to deal with that (or not deal with it). It makes sense that the board ignored megalomaniacal behaviors for a long time because everything was up and to the right, but at some point recently they must have started feeling completely disintermediated, which became an existential threat (for them and probably for their perception of adequate corporate governance).

As they frequently say, this has the makings of a Havard Business School test case, but let's see how everything pans out over the next couple of weeks before jumping to too many conclusions.

Idk, but they were posting details of the disagreements on Friday a few hours ahead of any other sources so I'm inclined to believe that they work at OpenAI.

I can believe this was written in earnest, but in the earnest of someone who doesn't really understand how to build product, or (which would be worse) someone with standards so high they would never release anything (a profile I have seen many times in my life). So, I can't really take it as valid criticism, since none of it reads as useful, or even valid criticism.

On Friday their comments included a bunch of details that were not made public anywhere else at the time.

If they don't get Altman back the company is toast and they were about to get an option to sell their shares in a new funding round so it would be dumb for them to not sign it.