According to Gizmodo, former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever revealed in a recent deposition that he spent over a year planning Sam Altman’s ouster before submitting a 52-page memo accusing Altman of “a consistent pattern of lying, undermining his execs, and pitting his execs against one another.” The board fired Altman on November 17, 2023, but faced immediate backlash when 738 employees signed a petition threatening to leave if Altman wasn’t reinstated, leading to his return just four days later on November 21. During the brief leadership vacuum, OpenAI and Anthropic held serious merger discussions that would have placed Anthropic’s leadership in charge of OpenAI, though these talks collapsed when Altman returned and the original board members stepped down. This new information provides crucial context about one of the most dramatic leadership crises in recent tech history.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The Merger That Almost Reshaped AI
The revelation that OpenAI and Anthropic seriously considered merging during Altman’s brief ouster represents one of the most significant near-misses in modern technology history. Had the merger proceeded, it would have consolidated two of the most advanced AI research organizations under single leadership, fundamentally altering the competitive dynamics of the entire industry. The combined entity would have controlled both GPT and Claude model families, potentially accelerating development timelines while reducing competitive pressure. This consolidation would have created an AI powerhouse with unprecedented technical talent and intellectual property, possibly triggering regulatory scrutiny and changing how enterprise customers approach AI vendor selection and pricing negotiations.
Employee Revolt as Market Force
The massive employee rebellion that forced Altman’s reinstatement demonstrates a new power dynamic in the AI talent wars. When 738 employees threatened to leave, they weren’t just protesting leadership changes—they were essentially holding OpenAI’s valuation and technical roadmap hostage. In an industry where top AI researchers command million-dollar compensation packages and can single-handedly advance model capabilities, this collective action showed that technical talent now wields unprecedented influence over corporate governance. The incident sets a precedent that could embolden technical staff at other AI companies to challenge leadership decisions they perceive as threatening the company’s mission or technical direction.
Corporate Governance in Crisis
The OpenAI board’s rapid reversal following Altman’s reinstatement with a new board highlights fundamental challenges in governing mission-driven AI companies. The original board’s attempt to remove Altman based on leadership concerns collided with investor interests and employee sentiment, revealing tensions between safety-focused governance and commercial imperatives. This governance crisis has broader implications for how venture-backed AI companies structure their boards and decision-making processes, particularly as they balance rapid growth with responsible development. The aftermath suggests that traditional corporate governance models may be inadequate for organizations navigating both massive commercial opportunity and existential risk considerations.
Market Consequences of Stability
Altman’s survival and subsequent consolidation of power has accelerated OpenAI’s commercial trajectory, including its transition to a for-profit structure and reported IPO preparations. The stability has allowed OpenAI to maintain its aggressive product rollout schedule and enterprise partnerships, forcing competitors to respond to its pace rather than capitalizing on internal turmoil. Meanwhile, Anthropic continues as an independent competitor, preserving a more diversified competitive landscape than would have existed under a merger. The outcome ultimately benefited Microsoft and other OpenAI partners who avoided the disruption of a leadership change or merger integration, while maintaining pressure on Google, Amazon, and other tech giants to keep pace with OpenAI’s innovation cycle.
Pattern Recognition in Tech Leadership
Sutskever’s allegations about Altman’s management style—particularly the claim that he was pushed out of Y Combinator for similar reasons—suggest recurring patterns in how visionary founders navigate organizational growth. The tension between ambitious, multi-threaded leadership and consistent, transparent management appears repeatedly in high-growth tech companies. What’s notable is how the market ultimately sided with Altman’s approach, valuing rapid execution and market dominance over management consistency. This outcome reinforces a pattern in Silicon Valley where boards and investors tolerate unconventional leadership styles from founders who deliver extraordinary growth, even when those styles create internal friction.
