> Why would you assume that "fired" likely means some form of gross misconduct
Since you seem to have not been following this story, it is because that is the accusation that lots of people are making against Sam Altman.
The rumor, for years, was that he was fired for some sort of significant dishonestly or misconduct.
Furthermore, there is other context in which Sam Altman was temporarily removed as CEO from OpenAI, for the stated/claimed reason of not being consistently candid with the board.
The obvious comparison that everyone is making would go something like "Well, there is this rumor that Sam got fired for dishonestly in the past, therefore it makes sense why he got fired again at OpenAI for dishonesty".
Paul G's tweet is a refutation of and in response to this context that is clear and obvious to anyone who has been following this story.
It doesn't matter what the reason was. The rumor could have been that he was "fired" for no fault of his own; it would still be false. When you are asked to stay on and concentrate full time on being the CEO of YC, you are not being fired as the CEO of YC.
The thing here is, a lot of people have (for reasons I cannot really fathom) invested some of their identities in the idea that they have worked out the bones of the whole Sam Altman story, and the First Commandment of Message Boards is "I'm not wrong".
> The thing here is, a lot of people have (for reasons I cannot really fathom)
Is it that hard to fathom? The internet likes to play teams with these personalities, it does it with Musk and Lisa Su and it did it with Marissa Meyer, etc. It's just waves of hating / hyping.
