Her position was listed as a fun fact, not in a responsible disclosure of possible conflicts of interest (though it ran the other way).
Being at the top of the org and being present during the specific incidents that gives one qualms burdens one with moral responsibility, even if they were the one who voted against.
You shouldn’t say “they did [x]” instead of “we did [x]” when x is bad and you were part of the team.
It sounds like your argument is "Even if OpenAI did something bad, Helen should never write about it, because she is part of OpenAI".
Or, that she should write her paper in the first person: "We, OpenAI, are doing bad things." That would probably be seen as vastly more damaging to OpenAI, and also ridiculous since she doesn't have the right to represent OpenAI as "we".
I have no idea why you think that should be a rule, aside from wanting Helen to never be able to criticize OpenAI publicly. I think it's good for the public if a board member will report what they see as potentially harmful internal problems.
I just don’t know why an ethicist would remain involved in a company they find is behaving unethically and proceed with business as usual. I suppose the answer is the news from Friday, though the course feels quite unwise for the multitude of reasons others have already outlined.
Regarding specific verbiage and grammar, I’m sure an academic could give clearer guidance on what is better form in professional writing. What was presented was clearly lacking.
Being at the top of the org and being present during the specific incidents that gives one qualms burdens one with moral responsibility, even if they were the one who voted against.
You shouldn’t say “they did [x]” instead of “we did [x]” when x is bad and you were part of the team.