Ok, please take this as constructive criticism of your writing, and not as a counterargument to your position.

In your post the comment.

> Graham's attempt to dispel rumors of Altman's supposed firing didn't work as well as hoped, with many of the responses reiterating that making him choose between OpenAI & YCombinator still constituted a form of firing.

Portrays this as a matter of opinion, when if any single opinion should be considered it should be Paul Graham's since he was the person performing the act.

The likely cause for Paul Graham's statement was Helen Toners comments a few days earlier

>if Sam did stay in power as he ultimately did you know that would make their lives miserable and I guess the last thing I would say about this is that this actually isn't a new problem for Sam and if you look at some of the reporting that that has come out since November it's come out that he was actually fired
from his previous job at Y combinator which was hushed up at the time

Which clearly carries the implication that this was an inarguable firing for misdeeds. In this context, it does not matter if being asked to make a choice is technically firing. The main point is that this is a rebuttal of the narrative put forth by Helen Toner.

Paul Graham makes this clear

>we would have been happy if he stayed

So this is how you start out, It places the article within a false narrative, but is not even the topic of the post. It would have been better to more concisely state that the thread containing Paul Graham's statement revealed an additional piece of information.

Next you say

>While responding to replies, it seems that Graham was informed - and later confirmed - that Altman had, in a pretty clear conflict of interest

You are combining a conclusion and evidence here. The evidence shows that Sam Altman has a degree of investment in OpenAI through Y Combinator. You need to make the argument that this was a clear conflict of interest separately, additionally you need to state whether you mean the conflict of interest is referring to when he invested the money as the president of Y Combinator, or later in decision making at OpenAI as a stake holder.

>obviously unbeknownst to YCombinator leadership,

Is clearly false because at the time Altman was YCombinator leadership himself.

>a tidy sum of $10 million

Everything is relative, it is worth taking into context how much $10 million represents to the people concerned. In your provided reference, Paul Graham describes the sum as

>This was not a very big investment for those funds.

I cannot critique the accuracy of your representations of the Wall Street Journal, as it is paywalled.

The Gist of the critique is that there are deals between OpenAI and enterprises that Sam Altman has an investment in. It is not uncommon for individuals to be in decision making roles in one company while it does dealings with another in which they have a financial interest.

It is not enough to establish that this connection exists for it to be a story. There needs to be some suggestion and evidence that there were decisions that were improperly influenced by the person with the conflict of interest. The typical way to avoid even the appearance of improper influence is for the person to declare their conflict of interest and leave that decision to non conflicted parties. Declarations of conflict of interest are commonplace, because conflicts of interest are not bad in themselves, only when they influence events.

If you are alleging that Sam Altman improperly influenced the negotiation with Reddit for data, or any similar conflicted negotiation, then you really have a story. You also need evidence to say that it happened. Even evidence that Sam Altman refused to step aside from such negotiations would be significant news. While he may not have influenced negotiations to his own advantage, being in a position where it appears that it might have happened would generally be considered a lapse in judgement.

Barring that evidence. You have a story about someone's investments that have increased in value, which is what people expect their investments to do.