'll just note that a lot of people have that view and that my observation is I can't think of a second way to explain it. I don't know a second way to explain this observation.

So here's an interesting update on OpenAI and ChatGPT. So another, we've got a resignation by another board member, Helen Toner. And she said this on X about her resignation: "To be clear, our decision was about the board's ability to effectively supervise the company, which was our role and responsibility." There's been speculation we were not motivated by a desire to slow down OpenAI. So the primary story that we all got about the Sam Altman situation, and I think it was reported in every outlet, was that the reason for the conflict was that the board wanted to go slower and Altman wanted to go faster on AI. And now here's the board member herself. She's saying unambiguously had nothing to do with that. Now if she didn't tell you that, what would the history of this situation have written? Probably it would have gone with all the news reports. It would have written that that was