This all sounds like hype momentum. People are creating conspiracy theories to backfit the events. That's the real danger to humanity: the hype becoming sentient and enslaving us all.

A more sober reading is that the board decided that Altman is a slimebag and they'd be better off without him, given that he has form in that respect.

Between this and the 4chanAGI hypothesis, the latter seems more plausible to me, because deciding that someone "is a slimebag and they'd be better off without him" is not something actual adults do when serious issues are at stake, especially not as a group and in a serious-business(-adjacent) setting. If there was a personal reason, it must've been something more concrete.

It's kind of incredible, people seem to have been trained to think that being unethical is just a part of being the CEO a large business.

Yeah, my point is that considering someone's character doesn't happen at the level of "is/is-not a slimebag", but at more detailed and specific way.

> people seem to have been trained to think that being unethical is just a part of being the CEO a large business

Not just large. A competitive market can be heavily corrupting, regardless of size (and larger businesses can get away with less, so...).