I expect this was very much taken into account by the people that have quit, which makes their decision to quit anyway quite alarming.

How many safety-focused people have left since the board drama now? I count 7, but I might be missing more. Ilya Sutskever, Jan Leike, Daniel Kokotajlo, Leopold Aschenbrenner, Cullen O'Keefe, Pavel Izmailov, William Saunders.

This is a big deal. A bunch of the voices that could raise safety concerns at OpenAI when things really heat up are now gone. Idk what happened behind the scenes, but they judged now is a good time to leave.

Possible effective intervention: Guaranteeing that if these people break their NDA's, all their legal fees will be compensated for. No idea how sensible this is, so agree/disagree voting encouraged.

Interesting post. I've always wondered how sensitive the views and efforts of the EA community are to the arbitrary historical process that led to its creation and development. Are there any in-depth explorations that try to answer this question? 

Or, since thinking about alternative history can only get us so far, are there any examples of EA-adjacent philosophies or movements throughout history? E.g. Mohism, a Chinese philosophy from 400 BC, sounds like a surprisingly close match in some ways.

FHI almost singlehandedly made salient so many obscure yet important research topics. To everyone that contributed over the years, thank you!

Sounds good overall. 1% each for priorities, cb and giving seems pretty low. 1.75% for mental health might also be on the low side, as there appears to be quite a bit of interest for global mental health in NL. I think the focus on entrepreneurship is great!

Hard to say, but his behavior (and the accounts from other people) seems most consistent with 1.

For clarity, it's on Saturday, not Friday! :)

The board must have thought things through in detail before pulling the trigger, so I'm still putting some credence on there being good reasons for their move and the subsequent radio silence, which might involve crucial info they have and we don't.

If not, all of this indeed seems like a very questionable move.

If OP disagrees, they should practice reasoning transparency by clarifying their views

OP believes in reasoning transparency, but their reasoning has not been transparent

Regardless of what Open Phil ends up doing, would really appreciate them to at least do this :)

I've shared very similar concerns for a while. The risk of successful narrow EA endeavors that lack transparency backfiring in this manner feels very predictable to me, but many seem to disagree.