A non-profit doesn’t have to offer their services for free, they can cover their expenses.

A profit driven company will often offer their services below cost in order to chase away the competition and capture users.

Right.

Which is why the board's accusations against Sam are a farce as far as we can tell.

Have they gotten specific yet? Last I heard was the whole “not sufficiently candid” thing, which is really nebulous; hard to call it a farce really. It is a “to be continued.”

I’m going to wait and see before I get too personally attached to any particular position.

To think that "Non-Profit" means "Free" is pretty naive. There are operating costs to maintain millions of users. That doesn't mean they are trying to profit.

Exactly.

So what's Sam's crime exactly, trying to cover the costs?

Again, conjecture with no supporting evidence.

Not sure what you're trying to say.

Clearly, under Altman, OpenAI has been massively successful one way or another, correct?

Now they boot him and claim moral superiority? Really?

I mean, as far as I know the guy hasn't written a single line of code.