https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1812w04/comment/kabk73s/
Resolves based on whether it seems this general impression is correct, even if it gets a few minor details wrong.
Notably, this account claims that the board's decision was a reasonable tactical decision (at least by Helen, Tasha, and Adam), and that they accomplished their objectives and walked away as their main winners here. This contrasts with most other perceptions, which have the board as well-meaning but incompetent, having failed to prevent Sam's consolidation of power.
@IsaacKing Let's say the theory is correct, except for 1-2 bullet points, which are badly wrong. How would you resolve in that case?
Note that there are many possible ways to read this story. E.g. one possible reading of this story is: The board members who voted to fire Sam got a far bloodier battle than they expected, and they might even agree that the way they did it was a mistake in retrospect, but they still ultimately won in the end despite that, where to them "winning" is defined as having an independent, healthy, functioning board overseeing OpenAI.
People betting on this market may have very different ideas of what the "story" is that they are betting on.
I think "they accomplished their objectives" and "walked away as their main winners here" (from isaac's description) is particularly relevant to how isaac interprets it. Today's interpretations do not view helen/tasha/adam as "main winners" or anything close, and I'd expect that to change to a significant extent for YES