As a general rule, you should give very little thought to anonymous 4chan posts.
But
They have leaked real things in the past, in exactly the same way. It may be 5% or less that turn out to be true, but there's the rub. That's why no one can completely dismiss it out of hand (and why were even discussing it on an HN comment thread in the first place).
It's kind of funny because we've gone from mocking that poor guy who got fired from Google because he claimed that some software was sentient, to some kind of mass hysteria where people expect the next version of OpenAI's LLM to be superhuman.
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...).
Qanon started as one of these, obviously at first just to troll. Then it got out of hand and got jacked by people using it for actual propaganda.