A very long article that details the shifting goals of Sam Altman. Personally I'd call it "lying", but for some reason the authors went to an outrageous degree to avoid using that word. Maybe they...
Even people close to Altman find it difficult to know where his “hope for humanity” ends and his ambition begins. His greatest strength has always been his ability to convince disparate groups that what he wants and what they need are one and the same. He made use of a unique historical juncture, when the public was wary of tech-industry hype and most of the researchers capable of building A.G.I. were terrified of bringing it into existence. Altman responded with a move that no other pitchman had perfected: he used apocalyptic rhetoric to explain how A.G.I. could destroy us all—and why, therefore, he should be the one to build it. Maybe this was a premeditated masterstroke. Maybe he was fumbling for an advantage. Either way, it worked.
A very long article that details the shifting goals of Sam Altman. Personally I'd call it "lying", but for some reason the authors went to an outrageous degree to avoid using that word. Maybe they went with a neutral tone to let all the conflicting statements speak for themselves.
There was a post somewhere (here?) this morning about how all last year he was saying he’d do one thing and then he lobbied the fed to do the opposite.
There was a post somewhere (here?) this morning about how all last year he was saying he’d do one thing and then he lobbied the fed to do the opposite.
The author didn't call him a liar, journalists shouldn't want us to trust their opinions. Thus the neutral(ish) tone. But they did spend an absurd amount of time getting quotes from people calling...
The author didn't call him a liar, journalists shouldn't want us to trust their opinions. Thus the neutral(ish) tone. But they did spend an absurd amount of time getting quotes from people calling him a liar. It's essentially the thesis of the whole novella length article. Sociopath was also mentioned more than once.
Cheers to them for the public service message, even if it was also a guaranteed viral hit.
Journalists are allowed to form conclusions based on their reporting. To be frank, I think both ways work, and I understand why they chose to "stay neutral" in tone, even though they're obviously...
Journalists are allowed to form conclusions based on their reporting. To be frank, I think both ways work, and I understand why they chose to "stay neutral" in tone, even though they're obviously writing one disparaging remark after another, but I found the conclusion at the end lack-luster considering the overwhelming amount of anecdotes depicting Altman in a negative light that the article contains.
It's strange to write over 10 000 words, and then at the end go "Welp, it's hard to say where his hope for humanity ends and his ambition begins!", that's not the impression the rest of the article gave me.
idk... I thought the ending was deft. It moved from catching him clearly contradicting himself, implying that he's after money and power despite his claims to the contrary, and then brings it home...
idk... I thought the ending was deft. It moved from catching him clearly contradicting himself, implying that he's after money and power despite his claims to the contrary, and then brings it home by using Altman's own words to make a veiled comparison between Altman's 'magic' and LLM sycophancy and hallucination.
It would be hard to walk away from that read with anything but the impression that Altman is full of shit. Tempered, I guess, by grudging acknowledgement of his Jobsesque salesmanship.
It reminds me of middle stage Musk with even less attachment to the truth. I wonder if he'll go as completely off the rails?
So long, but damn it was fascinating. I would say the authors didn't call his lies lies because they didn't need to - with all the details they give, Altman comes off as the lowest sort of weasel,...
So long, but damn it was fascinating. I would say the authors didn't call his lies lies because they didn't need to - with all the details they give, Altman comes off as the lowest sort of weasel, talking out of both sides of his mouth to get himself power and money and glory. With some of those anecdotes where he lied to people's faces, and all the weak-ass "Oh I can't remember saying that" bullshit, yeah it's clear that this guy is a sociopath.
Oh, perhaps as far as I could throw Sam Bankman-Fried. Really, the whole pattern of "please regulate our industry" public statements and private deregulatory lobbying gives the game away for me.
Oh, perhaps as far as I could throw Sam Bankman-Fried.
Really, the whole pattern of "please regulate our industry" public statements and private deregulatory lobbying gives the game away for me.
Reminds me of a series from a creator I follow on YouTube. The creator is Alex Falcone and the series is titled "Is it a scam? Yep." Pronounced without the pause between the question and answer.
Reminds me of a series from a creator I follow on YouTube. The creator is Alex Falcone and the series is titled "Is it a scam? Yep." Pronounced without the pause between the question and answer.
Every time I see an interview with him all I can think is "This is Dark Triad personality incarnate." So to answer the headline's question: No I absolutely don't believe we can trust him.
Every time I see an interview with him all I can think is "This is Dark Triad personality incarnate." So to answer the headline's question: No I absolutely don't believe we can trust him.
Eh. The buck doesn't stop with people like Altman, Zuckerberg, or Nadella. I think it's a symptom of a broader problem in tech. Half the people on this site made a decision to work at companies that do shady things, and they did that to maximize personal wealth.
The difference isn't that the average techie doesn't dream of making a billion by any means necessary; it's that most of us don't think we have a shot, so we stick to enabling lesser evils to retire with mere millions in the bank
Fair point. But in a way, a lot of people directly (or indirectly) work for big corporations with dubious intentions/moral standards. I'm thinking of fossil fuel companies, banks (not all),...
Fair point. But in a way, a lot of people directly (or indirectly) work for big corporations with dubious intentions/moral standards. I'm thinking of fossil fuel companies, banks (not all), insurance companies, gambling platforms, big tobacco, etc.
What I'm trying to say is that maybe it's just a trait of humanity itself, and not just tech. We think we don't do harm by just being a cog in the wheel, but in reality we are attributing though.
I agree it's not just a trait of tech, but it's a problem particularly bad within tech. Especially when you're not talking about working somewhere just to survive but to "maximize personal...
I agree it's not just a trait of tech, but it's a problem particularly bad within tech. Especially when you're not talking about working somewhere just to survive but to "maximize personal wealth."
Working at a bank or insurance company may or may not put you in that category depending on your job, but most folks will not be raking in the huge paychecks. (Working for a gambling platform sounds like a tech job not a casino to me, but same deal at a casino). I worked for a private prison company and had to GTFO for my moral sanity but I also was definitely not there to maximize my personal wealth. There are absolutely jobs in those spaces where that applies though.
So I think there's a difference between "doing indirect harm" which we do all the time (and is probably not a humanity thinking rather than a cultural thing IMO) and what the post I quoted was talking about.
A very long article that details the shifting goals of Sam Altman. Personally I'd call it "lying", but for some reason the authors went to an outrageous degree to avoid using that word. Maybe they went with a neutral tone to let all the conflicting statements speak for themselves.
There was a post somewhere (here?) this morning about how all last year he was saying he’d do one thing and then he lobbied the fed to do the opposite.
That happened a few times, and is mentioned in the article.
not a lawyer, but wondering if saying it outright makes it a lot easier to sue.
The author didn't call him a liar, journalists shouldn't want us to trust their opinions. Thus the neutral(ish) tone. But they did spend an absurd amount of time getting quotes from people calling him a liar. It's essentially the thesis of the whole novella length article. Sociopath was also mentioned more than once.
Cheers to them for the public service message, even if it was also a guaranteed viral hit.
Journalists are allowed to form conclusions based on their reporting. To be frank, I think both ways work, and I understand why they chose to "stay neutral" in tone, even though they're obviously writing one disparaging remark after another, but I found the conclusion at the end lack-luster considering the overwhelming amount of anecdotes depicting Altman in a negative light that the article contains.
It's strange to write over 10 000 words, and then at the end go "Welp, it's hard to say where his hope for humanity ends and his ambition begins!", that's not the impression the rest of the article gave me.
idk... I thought the ending was deft. It moved from catching him clearly contradicting himself, implying that he's after money and power despite his claims to the contrary, and then brings it home by using Altman's own words to make a veiled comparison between Altman's 'magic' and LLM sycophancy and hallucination.
It would be hard to walk away from that read with anything but the impression that Altman is full of shit. Tempered, I guess, by grudging acknowledgement of his Jobsesque salesmanship.
It reminds me of middle stage Musk with even less attachment to the truth. I wonder if he'll go as completely off the rails?
So long, but damn it was fascinating. I would say the authors didn't call his lies lies because they didn't need to - with all the details they give, Altman comes off as the lowest sort of weasel, talking out of both sides of his mouth to get himself power and money and glory. With some of those anecdotes where he lied to people's faces, and all the weak-ass "Oh I can't remember saying that" bullshit, yeah it's clear that this guy is a sociopath.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines
I was waiting for this.
"Can he be trusted?"
NO.
Oh, perhaps as far as I could throw Sam Bankman-Fried.
Really, the whole pattern of "please regulate our industry" public statements and private deregulatory lobbying gives the game away for me.
In fact, Bugs Bunny No
Reminds me of a series from a creator I follow on YouTube. The creator is Alex Falcone and the series is titled "Is it a scam? Yep." Pronounced without the pause between the question and answer.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/04/the-problem-is-sam-altman-openai-insiders-dont-trust-ceo/
Every time I see an interview with him all I can think is "This is Dark Triad personality incarnate." So to answer the headline's question: No I absolutely don't believe we can trust him.
I actually think he looks like AI.
One of the authors is answering questions on Hacker News:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47659135
Poignant IMO
Fair point. But in a way, a lot of people directly (or indirectly) work for big corporations with dubious intentions/moral standards. I'm thinking of fossil fuel companies, banks (not all), insurance companies, gambling platforms, big tobacco, etc.
What I'm trying to say is that maybe it's just a trait of humanity itself, and not just tech. We think we don't do harm by just being a cog in the wheel, but in reality we are attributing though.
I agree it's not just a trait of tech, but it's a problem particularly bad within tech. Especially when you're not talking about working somewhere just to survive but to "maximize personal wealth."
Working at a bank or insurance company may or may not put you in that category depending on your job, but most folks will not be raking in the huge paychecks. (Working for a gambling platform sounds like a tech job not a casino to me, but same deal at a casino). I worked for a private prison company and had to GTFO for my moral sanity but I also was definitely not there to maximize my personal wealth. There are absolutely jobs in those spaces where that applies though.
So I think there's a difference between "doing indirect harm" which we do all the time (and is probably not a humanity thinking rather than a cultural thing IMO) and what the post I quoted was talking about.