> because the board tried to keep Greg at the company
Aside from the fact that they didn't fire him as President and said he was staying on in the press release that went out without any consultation, I've seen no suggestion of any effort to keep him at the company.
Right, but there was no effort to actually oust him either. Which you would expect them to do if they had to fire guilty parties for a massive wrongdoing that couldn’t be ignored
Either he had no part in this hypothetical transgression and thinks the accusation is nonsense, or he was part of it and for some inexplicable reason wasn’t asked to leave Open AI despite that. But you have to choose.
> Right, but there was no effort to actually oust him either.
Reducing someone's responsibility significantly is well known to often be a mmechanism to oust them without explicitly firing, so I don't know that that is the case.
Well, they still haven’t accused him of anything yet despite repeatedly being asked to explain their reasoning, so it seems fair to give him the benefit of the doubt until they do.
