Note that everything below is speculation. I am merely trying to suggest an hypothesis which would answer the question of how the Annie Altman allegations could have led to this outcome. FWIW I think it's better speculation than some of the 'he did a side deal with MS' stuff above.
It seems basically impossible for OpenAI to have proved the validity of Annie Altman's claims about childhood sexual abuse. But they might have to take them seriously, especially once they were presented coherently on LessWrong.
If Sam had lied or misled the board about some aspect of his relationship with his sister, that would be a sacking offence. Eg he says "Annie's claims are completely untrue - I never abused her [maybe true or not, almost certainly unprovable], I never got her shadow banned from Instagram [by hypothesis true] and I never told her I could get her banned [untrue]." The board then engage a law firm or PI to check out the claims and they come up with a text message clearly establishing that he threatened to pull strings and get her banned. He lied to the board regarding an investigation into his good character so he's gone. And the board have the external investigator's stamp on the fact that he lied so they can cover their own ass.
Why would he tell a lie like this? Because whatever the truth of the allegations, he's arrogant and didn't take them as seriously as he should have. He mistakenly thought he could be dismissive and it wouldn't come back to bite him.
This seems consistent with the way things played out. (Note again: I'm just trying to come up with something consistent. I have no idea if this is at all accurate or the whole affair is about something completely different.) They don't have to worry about keeping him on as an advisor to cover up scandal. They can clearly state that he lied in an important matter. But they don't say what it's about - because they still have no idea whether the original allegations are true or not. They are not going to put themselves in a situation of saying "and he probably molested his sister". They wouldn't even say "it is related to abuse allegations made by a family member", which implies there might be evidence to the original allegations, and is probably defamatory. And he comes out saying that something unfair has happened, without giving any context, because he knows that even mentioning the allegations is going to lead to "but didn't he molest his sister" type comments, for the rest of time.
It's also consistent with the timing. They aren't just going to hear the Annie allegations and sack him. It takes time to look into these things. But within 6 weeks of it becoming an issue, they might be able to identify that he's either lied previously to the board about the gravity of this issue, lied during the current investigation, or something he's said publicly is clearly dishonest.
It seems basically impossible for OpenAI to have proved the validity of Annie Altman's claims about childhood sexual abuse. But they might have to take them seriously, especially once they were presented coherently on LessWrong.
If Sam had lied or misled the board about some aspect of his relationship with his sister, that would be a sacking offence. Eg he says "Annie's claims are completely untrue - I never abused her [maybe true or not, almost certainly unprovable], I never got her shadow banned from Instagram [by hypothesis true] and I never told her I could get her banned [untrue]." The board then engage a law firm or PI to check out the claims and they come up with a text message clearly establishing that he threatened to pull strings and get her banned. He lied to the board regarding an investigation into his good character so he's gone. And the board have the external investigator's stamp on the fact that he lied so they can cover their own ass.
Why would he tell a lie like this? Because whatever the truth of the allegations, he's arrogant and didn't take them as seriously as he should have. He mistakenly thought he could be dismissive and it wouldn't come back to bite him.
This seems consistent with the way things played out. (Note again: I'm just trying to come up with something consistent. I have no idea if this is at all accurate or the whole affair is about something completely different.) They don't have to worry about keeping him on as an advisor to cover up scandal. They can clearly state that he lied in an important matter. But they don't say what it's about - because they still have no idea whether the original allegations are true or not. They are not going to put themselves in a situation of saying "and he probably molested his sister". They wouldn't even say "it is related to abuse allegations made by a family member", which implies there might be evidence to the original allegations, and is probably defamatory. And he comes out saying that something unfair has happened, without giving any context, because he knows that even mentioning the allegations is going to lead to "but didn't he molest his sister" type comments, for the rest of time.
It's also consistent with the timing. They aren't just going to hear the Annie allegations and sack him. It takes time to look into these things. But within 6 weeks of it becoming an issue, they might be able to identify that he's either lied previously to the board about the gravity of this issue, lied during the current investigation, or something he's said publicly is clearly dishonest.