From everything I've read, safety still feels like a red herring.
It just doesn't fit with everyone's behavior -- that's something that would have been talked about loudly.
Altman lying to the board, especially in pursuit of board control, fits more cleanly with everyone's actions (and reluctance to talk about what exactly precipitated this).
- Altman tries to effect board control
- Confidant tells other board members (Ilya?)
- Board asks Altman if he tried
- Altman lies
- Board fires Altman
Fits much more cleanly with the lack of information, and how no one (on any side!) seems overly eager to speak to specifics.
Why jump to AGI as an explanation, when standard human drama will suffice?
But then that doesn't square with board refuses to tell employees or Microsoft or the public that altman committed malfeasance or provide examples. That would be pretty cut and dry and msft wouldn't be willing to acquihire the entire company we with altman as CEO if there was a valid reason like that.
It just doesn't fit with everyone's behavior -- that's something that would have been talked about loudly.
Altman lying to the board, especially in pursuit of board control, fits more cleanly with everyone's actions (and reluctance to talk about what exactly precipitated this).
Fits much more cleanly with the lack of information, and how no one (on any side!) seems overly eager to speak to specifics.Why jump to AGI as an explanation, when standard human drama will suffice?