The "tech bros" were right: The board absolutely were conspirators wrecking the company based on dogmatic ideology. "Tech bros" had clear evidence of Sutskever, Toner and McCauley's deep and well-known ties to the Effective Altruist (EA) movement and doomerist views. Nobody can doubt Sutskever's technical credentials, whatever his strange beliefs, but Toner and McCauley had no such technical background or even business achievements. These members instead were organizers in EA and researchers in the "field" of AI governance and safety. This is no expertise at all. These "disciplines" are built more on Yudkowsky's rants and hypotheticals and the precautionary principle gone mad than any empirical research. These ideas also come from a cult-like social movement (EA) accumulating power across tech and government with few scruples, as shown by SBF's implosion last year and many smaller incidents. How could Toner and McCauley assess briefings if they couldn't assess the technical fundamentals? How could they foresee the consequences of sacking the CEO if they didn't understand business? If they already believed AGI would kill all humans, how could they judge new advances on the merits without jumping to wild conclusions? Instead, us "tech bros" felt people with this background would fall back on uninformed, reactionary, and opaque decision making, leading to wrecking an $80 billion business with no decent explanation.
This now seems to be exactly what happened. The board saw Q* and decided to coup the company, to put all power in their hands and stop development. This by itself is bad enough if you care about open science or progress, but it gets worse. They didn't even want to hint at capabilities increases to avoid "advancing timelines" i.e. Open-ing knowledge about AI, so they made up some canard about Altman's "lying to the board" to hide their real reasons. This is vile libel for unscrupulous ends. When they realized this excuse wouldn't fly, they obfuscated and refused to explain their true concerns, even to their own handpicked CEO Emmett Shear. However, it turns out that destroying $80 billion and lying about why won't fly in the real world. The board had no second-order or even first-order thinking about the consequences of their actions, and were rolled up by bigger actors. These people were unprepared and unable to follow up their coup.
This failure is exactly what you'd expect from a brilliant scientist with little organizational experience (Ilya) and social-science academics and NGO organizers (Toner and McCauley). I don't care what gender they are, these people neither deserved their authority nor could use it effectively. Dismissing valid criticism of the board as "cyber bullying" or "tech bro sexism" merely underscores why most engineers hate DEI rhetoric in the first place.