I think some people in that Twitter thread, pg included, have become so brainwashed by euphemistic phrases like "we agreed to part ways" to cover a firing, that they start to believe their own hype.
A firing can have varying degrees of amicability. It can be a reluctant firing. You can literally say "we're sad to see you go" and mean it. But I think it's still a firing in this case. It is so weird to see people have trouble grasping this.
>No, we would have been happy if he stayed and got someone else to run OpenAI.
PS: It's not advertised, but YC participants smoke a lot of bowls.
The thing I don't like about this "it was absolutely a firing" take is that when the WaPo article first came out, the clear implication among the vast majority of online comments I saw was that YC didn't want Altman to be president. You can argue all you want about the "true meaning" of firing, but that implication is very different IMO than asking Altman to choose one or the other. And Paul Graham, one of the only people who actually knows the details, obviously agrees.
So I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim "it was still a firing", with the unspoken implication that YC didn't want Altman, when all the evidence points to the fact that the decision was ultimately Altman's.
If it were a slob on the bus getting fired, or some boss you've never heard of BSing about how that's not what he did (then gives a textbook example of a firing as if it proves him right...) you're not going to bend your reality to explain it away and make excuses for them. It's entirely the reputation of the people and your opinion of them that drives you to make these statements.
This is utter bullshit. Check my comment history, I've been plenty critical of both pg and sama in the past.
But whatever, you believe your fantasy explanation.
I'm not saying everybody here has this. Some do.
I apologize for lumping you in.