He had dual overlapping roles, a duty to the promote safe AI to the world, and a duty to prevent own-goal sabotage to the LLC. Ideally those roles wouldn’t conflict. He probably didn’t care if such a paper was written, but to have a board member as author is beyond awkward. But as an academic, her own dual overlapping role, she has a need to publish. (“Uh, please voice your concerns before we develop it instead of sand bagging us with a damning critique in an academic journal after the fact!”) This seems like a recipe for disaster. I’m not certain either really was “wrong” in that conflict. It just seems like this structure was doomed to failure, throwing uncompromising zealots together all with launch codes and a big red button.
Safety isn’t binary, it’s degrees of risk assessment, mitigation and acceptance. Infinite safety is never progressing. But never progressing means failing the charity mission. And AI isn’t just being created at OpenAI, for them to succeed at the charity mission they need to stay ahead of risky competitors with a safer AI.
The charity can’t afford its GPU costs without the LLC, and the LLC can’t lead the industry if it’s behind all the competitors. To be relevant the safety side needs compute, and they need to be ahead of the curve, and they also need real world data from the LLC. If the charity nukes the LLC, it takes itself with it and fails its mission. They’re so intertwined they need compromise in the board. And they let that board dwindle to small entrenched factions, which sounded more like the Hatfield’s and the mcCoys. With such a fragile structure they needed mature adults with functional conflict resolution.