I think trying to remove Toner for being a public author of that report is actually pretty out of line. (Note: the NYT article doesn't actually seem to provide evidence that Sam tried to get her removed from the board, though it sure does try to imply it real hard by reference to other things, like the email he sent criticizing her.)

>Other entities with less of a brake on their ethics are gaining ground.

Did OpenAI actually have a meaningful brake though? Like, if all the employees apparently think that the success of the company is more important than the charter, can we be sure that OpenAI actually had a meaningful brake?

She published AI safety research as a member of a board whose mandate it is to act as a check and balance on the operation of an AI company. You are saying that she should hide information from the public out of loyalty to the company.

edit: Or that the board can't actually make a difference because whatever OpenAI doesn't do someone else will. But if people actually thought that were true they wouldn't have set up the board and charter.

Let's say you have a time machine and 20 years later OpenAI destroyed humanity b/c of how fast they were pushing AI advancement.

Would the destruction of OpenAI in 2023 be seen as bad or good with that hindsight?

It seems bad now but if you believe the board was operating with that future in mind (whether or not you agree with that future) it's completely reasonable imo.

This is an argument that can be (and is) used to justify anything.