I... don't agree at all? Actually I can't imagine a single board who would keep a CEO if credible allegations of raping his own sister were going around. It's not just an age issue (which is still a huge wtf, 13yo is old enough to know about right and wrong in the context of his own sister), it's also the incest part.
I'm not saying this happened or it didn't. But just that it could absolutely be more than enough to fire anyone.
The “with the explanation OpenAI has provided” in GP was substantive, not decorative.
I don't disagree that the accusation alone (especially if it stood up to modest scrutiny, and looked to be ongoing PR issue, even if not well substantiated enough to have confidence that it was likely to be true) might be sufficient for firing; CEOs are the public and and internal face of the firm, and so PR or employee safety concerns that attach to them are important to the firm. But it wouldn't be for lack of candor with the board unless there was something for which the board had a very strong reason to believe Altman was dishonest in a significant way.
They could easily fire him with the lack of confidence language without the lack of candor language.
While 'believe victims' is directionally correct, there exist a subset of those with mental illnesses who will make up the absolute worst possible allegations just to try to get what they want. You simply cannot fire people based on accusations alone or you empower every terrible incentive known to man.
I'm not saying this happened or it didn't. But just that it could absolutely be more than enough to fire anyone.