This is interesting because I kind of view it the opposite way. The interesting thing about Zuckerberg, Brin & Page is that the have legal structures in place to give them control. Mark Zuckerberg doesn't need to be popular, he has the votes. He can drive Meta into a wall if he wants to - and he absolutely has taken that choice sometimes. The thing about the structure that was in place at OpenAI is that if Altman went rogue there was someone there to hold him to account. Now there actually is a really interesting conversation about what that accountability mechanism was, but what happened in practice is the board just screwed up.

But I do think it is worth considering, was this non-profit board thought out in the first place. If you were serious about the dangers of AI and the impact on the world I think it's absolutely sensible to set up a board to be a balance on that power. But it's important who you put on that board - and the people they selected were comical. Brockman, Sutskever, and Altman are all the people that are meant to be accountable to the board, not on the board.

If you wanted accountability you would, for a start, have had some people from outside silicon valley on this board. Some people who know something about Labour rights for example, maybe some people from the creative industries you're disrupting, maybe even some policy experts. It's just funny to think that this is what they thought accountability was. Accountability to their own friends.