Sexual abuse by Sam when she was four years old and he 13.
Develops PCOS (which has seen some association with child abuse) and childhood OCD and depression. Thrown out. Begins working as sex worker for survival. It's a real grim story.
So either sama is hacking "into her wifi" (?), hacking into her accounts, and pulling strings at unrelated companies to get her shadowbanned from Facebook, Instagram, YouTube etc (is that even a thing?)... or Occam's Razor applies and he didn't.
This is hardly unexpected for profound allegations without strong supporting evidence, and yes, I'm well aware that presentation of any evidence would be difficult to validate on HN, such that a third-party assessment (as in a court of law, for example) would typically be required.
I'm not claiming that HN has a stellar record of dealing with unpleasant news or inconvenient facts. But that any such bias originates from YC rather than reader responses and general algorithmic treatments (e.g., "flamewar detector") is itself strongly unsupported, and your characterisation above really is beyond the pale.
Not that I think it has anything to do with that; I think it more likely has to do with some kind of money issue tied to the LLC, given reports of others impacted, on and off the board.
https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/163570439893983232...
... and he was 13. Which, yes, is a very bad thing, but unless the company investigated that claim (e.g., to assess potential PR fallout) and there was some significant deception by Altman against the board in the context of that investigation, its not something that would get him fired with the explanation OpenAI has provided.
(OTOH, the accusation and its potential PR impact could be a factor that weighed into how the board handled an unrelated problem with Altman—it certainly isn't helpful to him.)
I'm not saying this happened or it didn't. But just that it could absolutely be more than enough to fire anyone.
I don't disagree that the accusation alone (especially if it stood up to modest scrutiny, and looked to be ongoing PR issue, even if not well substantiated enough to have confidence that it was likely to be true) might be sufficient for firing; CEOs are the public and and internal face of the firm, and so PR or employee safety concerns that attach to them are important to the firm. But it wouldn't be for lack of candor with the board unless there was something for which the board had a very strong reason to believe Altman was dishonest in a significant way.
They could easily fire him with the lack of confidence language without the lack of candor language.
Does anyone know what that’s about?