As for "holding back the organization", if we're talking about existential risk, I want them to be held back. These people have no business being stewards of any technology that might be an existential risk.
In addition, the attempt to rebrand it is victim-blaming.
It is wise to be exceedingly cautious when deploying ends-justifies-the-means logic. Most of the time, history doesn’t remember those who employ it too fondly.
Boards serve a vital fiduciary duty to ensure good corporate governance.
They do not exist to hold back the organisation and are not there to be outsmarted.
The government doesn't hold boards to any standard. It's a free-for-all.
Sometimes they are owners, other times they are the ones being duped into rubber stamping and legitimizing criminals.
Boards routinely hold back the success of organizations, and ousting those boards can be in the best interests of the company. This is pure idealism. Some companies are better with passive or active boards; however, activist boards and passive-reactive boards can cause all kinds of harm leading to the death of the company.
The board member here does not appear knowledgeable in the technology while also expressing a motive be deeply involved in its development. This was a recipe for disaster.
How could you say this with a straight face.
