[HN Gopher] Sam Altman may control our future - can he be trusted?
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Sam Altman may control our future - can he be trusted?
        
       Author : adrianhon
       Score  : 448 points
       Date   : 2026-04-06 10:36 UTC (12 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.newyorker.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.newyorker.com)
        
       | thm wrote:
       | Hybris.
        
       | Cheyana wrote:
       | Harvey Dent...
        
         | the_doctah wrote:
         | The brighter the picture, the darker the negative
        
       | adrianhon wrote:
       | Archive link:
       | https://archive.is/2026.04.06-100412/https://www.newyorker.c...
        
       | ronanfarrow wrote:
       | Ronan Farrow here. Andrew Marantz and I spent 18 months on this
       | investigation. Happy to answer questions about the reporting.
        
         | cmiles8 wrote:
         | Great reporting.
         | 
         | Altman describes his shifting views as genuine good faith
         | evolution of thinking. Do you believe he has a clear North Star
         | behind all this that's not centered on himself?
        
           | i7l wrote:
           | (Other people's) money.
        
           | ronanfarrow wrote:
           | The piece is an interrogation of this very question, at great
           | length and with some nuance. I think what it does most
           | usefully is scrutinize an array of different answers to the
           | question.
           | 
           | My own impression after many hours of conversation is that he
           | is identifying something of a true north star when he frames
           | this around "winning." There are people in the story who talk
           | about him emphasizing a desire for power (as opposed to, say,
           | wealth). I think he probably also believes, to some extent,
           | the story he tells that equates winning, and his gaining
           | power, with a superabundant utopian future for all.
           | 
           | However, I think critics correctly highlight a tension
           | between his statements about centering humanity writ large
           | and his tilt into relentless accelerationism.
        
         | cs702 wrote:
         | Thank you for coming on HN and offering to answer questions.[a]
         | 
         | This is a _fantastic_ piece, very timely, evidently well-
         | researched, and also well-written. Judging by the little that I
         | know, it 's accurate. Thank you for doing the work and sharing
         | it with the world.
         | 
         | OpenAI may be in a more tenuous competitive position than many
         | people realize. Recent anecdotal evidence suggests the company
         | has lost its lead in the AI race to Anthropic.[b]
         | 
         | Many people here, on HN, who develop software prefer Claude,
         | because they think it's a better product.[c]
         | 
         | Is your understanding of OpenAI's current competitive position
         | similar?
         | 
         | ---
         | 
         | [a] You may want to provide proof online that you are who you
         | say you are:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet%2C_nobody_know...
         | 
         | [b] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-04-01/openais-
         | sh...
         | 
         | [c] For example, there are 2x more stories mentioning Claude
         | than ChatGPT on HN over the past year. Compare
         | https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=tru...
         | to
         | https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=tru...
        
           | brightbeige wrote:
           | He's replying on this twitter thread - perhaps someone with
           | an account can ask there and link his comment here?
           | 
           | https://xcancel.com/RonanFarrow/status/2041127882429206532#m
        
           | georgemcbay wrote:
           | > You may want to provide proof online that you are who you
           | say you are
           | 
           | Unfortunately it probably doesn't even matter here on HN
           | considering how brigaded down this story is predictably
           | getting.
           | 
           | But yeah, it was a fantastic piece.
        
             | ronanfarrow wrote:
             | Fair request, here you go:
             | https://x.com/RonanFarrow/status/2041203911697068112
        
             | dang wrote:
             | It wasn't getting "brigaded down" - it set off a software
             | penalty called the flamewar detector. I turned that off as
             | soon as I saw it.
        
           | ronanfarrow wrote:
           | Thank you for this, very much appreciate the thoughtful
           | response.
           | 
           | The piece captures some of the anxieties within OpenAI right
           | now about their competitive position. This obviously ebbs and
           | flows but of late there has been much focus on Anthropic's
           | relative position. We of course mention the allegations of
           | "circular deals" and concerns about partners taking on debt.
        
             | cs702 wrote:
             | Thank you. Yes, I saw that. The company's always been
             | surrounded by endless talk about insane hype, speculative
             | bubbles, and financial engineering. I wasn't asking so much
             | about that.
             | 
             | I was asking more about your informed view on how OpenAI's
             | technology, products, and roadmap are perceived,
             | particularly by customers and partners, in comparison to
             | those of competitors.
             | 
             | If you have an opinion about that, everyone here would love
             | to hear about it.
        
           | unsupp0rted wrote:
           | Many of us prefer OpenAI's Codex, because we think it's a
           | better product.
           | 
           | No comment on the CEO: I just find the product superior in
           | everything but UI/UX and conversation. It's better at quality
           | code.
        
             | mliker wrote:
             | Who is "us"? It does seem that some scientists prefer Codex
             | for its math capabilities but when it comes to general
             | frontend and backend construction, Claude Code is just as
             | good and possibly made better with its extensive Skills
             | library.
             | 
             | Both codex and Claude code fail when it comes to extremely
             | sophisticated programming for distributed systems
        
               | unsupp0rted wrote:
               | Us = me and say /r/codex or wherever Codex users are.
               | I've tried both, liked both, but in my projects one
               | clearly produces better results, more maintainable code
               | and does a better job of debugging and refactoring.
        
               | sampullman wrote:
               | That's interesting, I actively use both and usually find
               | it to be a toss up which one performs better at a given
               | task. I generally find Claude to be better with complex
               | tool calls and Codex to be better at reviewing code, but
               | otherwise don't see a significant difference.
        
               | aswanson wrote:
               | Any difference in performance on mobile development?
        
               | zeroxfe wrote:
               | I'm in that camp -- I have the max-tier subscription to
               | pretty much all the services, and for now Codex seems to
               | win. Primarily because 1) long horizon development tasks
               | are much more reliable with codex, and 2) OpenAI is far
               | more generous with the token limits.
               | 
               | Gemini seems to be the worst of the three, and some open-
               | weight models are not too bad (like Kimi k2.5). Cursor is
               | still pretty good, and copilot just really really sucks.
        
           | ed wrote:
           | It's worth noting Codex has 2x more stories than Claude
           | https://hn.algolia.com/?query=codex
        
         | xnx wrote:
         | In depth reporting is great. This is a really tricky topic to
         | cover over the course of 18 months. A year and a half ago
         | OpenAI was ascendant, now it's -at best- stalling and, more
         | likely, trending toward irrelevant.
        
         | taurath wrote:
         | The statements around the sexual abuse allegations seemed to be
         | the most puzzling to me - his sister's allegations and claims
         | of underage partners because he has a tendency to hook up with
         | younger partners. It does seem like this piece gives him a
         | pretty clean bill of health in that matter - I guess would you
         | be able to talk about how you investigated?
         | 
         | Did you do any extra investigations into Annie's allegations?
         | It feels to me like the unstated conclusion is recovered memory
         | can't be trusted, which is a popular understanding but a very
         | wrong one put out by the now defunct and discredited False
         | Memory Syndrome Foundation. It was founded by the parents of
         | the psychologist who coined DARVO, directly in reaction to her
         | accusing them of abuse.
         | 
         | Dissociation is real (I have a dissociative disorder, and abuse
         | I "recovered" but did not remember for much of my adolescence
         | and early adulthood has been corroborated by third parties) and
         | many CSA survivors have severe memory problems that often don't
         | come to a head until adulthood. I know you didn't dismiss her
         | claim, but the way the public tends to think about recovered
         | memories is shaped primarily by that awful organization.
        
           | ronanfarrow wrote:
           | All fair points on trauma and memory.
           | 
           | As noted in the piece, we spent months talking to Altman's
           | partners and what we found and didn't is as described.
        
             | taurath wrote:
             | Thanks for the response! Cheers just fully reread the piece
             | and appreciate your reporting.
        
             | girvo wrote:
             | It's super neat to see you here on HN taking questions,
             | kudos :)
        
         | FloorEgg wrote:
         | Hi Ronan,
         | 
         | I would love to read your piece and pay you and new Yorker for
         | it, but I am not interested in paying a subscription. If I
         | could press a button and pay a reasonable one time license such
         | as $3 or $5 for just this article, or better yet a few cents
         | per paragraph as they load in, I wouldn't hesitate.
         | 
         | However I'm not going to pay for yet another subscription to
         | access one article I'm interested in.
         | 
         | I'm sure you can't do anything about this, but I just wanted
         | you to know.
         | 
         | You deserve to be compensated for great journalism. In this
         | case, unfortunately, I won't read it and you won't earn income
         | from me.
        
           | caycep wrote:
           | You could hit up a public library...
        
             | eichin wrote:
             | Looking online it looks like the newsstand price of an
             | issue is around $10 (which I'd assume is heavily ad
             | subsidized, if anyone is still buying print ads?) which is
             | an interesting data point for a pricing model. (Of course,
             | I looked online because I have no idea where I'd find a
             | newsstand around here - the nearest newsstand that show up
             | on google maps has reviews that say "It's just snacks and
             | scratch tickets." and "three newspapers and no magazines" -
             | I may have to stop by just to see what three newspapers
             | they have :-)
        
           | IrishTechie wrote:
           | I've often thought about a model like this and would love to
           | see a few news outlets run it as a pilot and see how it
           | stacks up.
        
           | mattbee wrote:
           | Or just switch your browser to Reader Mode and it's free.
        
           | cloud_line wrote:
           | You could buy a physical copy (and this isn't meant to sound
           | sarcastic).
        
         | fblp wrote:
         | Hi Ronan appreciate you being here. what would help you and
         | others continue to do journalism like this? (including
         | commenting on HN?)
        
         | rhlannx wrote:
         | I have the feeling that if you write an article in that style,
         | the subject of the story becomes the hero even if you insert a
         | couple of negatives. In the same manner that Michael Corleone
         | becomes the hero of The Godfather.
         | 
         | I'm not pleased with the headline and the general framing that
         | AI works. The plagiarism and IP theft aspects are entirely
         | omitted. The widespread disillusion with AI is omitted.
         | 
         | On the positive side, the Kushner ad Abu Dhabi involvements
         | (and threats from Kushner) deserve a wider audience.
         | 
         | My personal opinion is that "who should control AI" is the
         | wrong question. In the current state, it is an IP laundering
         | device and I wonder why publications fall silent on this. For
         | example, the NYT has abandoned their crown witness Suchir
         | Balaji who literally perished for his convictions (murder or
         | not).
        
         | Stevvo wrote:
         | [delayed]
        
       | ahartmetz wrote:
       | Well, no, obviously not. Not one bit.
        
       | LetsGetTechnicl wrote:
       | No
        
         | gonzo41 wrote:
         | just like Zuck.
        
       | catigula wrote:
       | 1. No.
       | 
       | 2. You cannot "control" superintelligent AI.
        
       | ekjhgkejhgk wrote:
       | No.
        
       | drivingmenuts wrote:
       | Short answer: No. Long answer: Hell, no.
        
       | sumeno wrote:
       | Betteridge strikes again
        
       | gchokov wrote:
       | He is cooked. Only a matter of time before the whole thing blows
       | up. Once a scammer, always a scammer.
        
       | Aboutplants wrote:
       | Seeing Sam Altman slowly degrade into the realization that he is
       | in fact not as smart as others in this space has been fascinating
       | to watch. He used to speak with enthusiasm and confidence and now
       | he's like a scared little boy who got in way too deep.
       | 
       | The last person that this happened to was Sam Bankman Fried as
       | investors and regular folk finally realized he was full of
       | complete shit and could only talk the game for so long until the
       | truth emerged.
        
         | therobots927 wrote:
         | Let's just hope that scared little boy doesn't run to Daddy
         | Trump for a bailout.
        
           | throwawayq3423 wrote:
           | I have a feeling he might be angling for a pardon if he ends
           | up bringing the whole global economy down.
        
           | jjtheblunt wrote:
           | which of the two are you referring to as possibly angling for
           | a pardon?
        
             | Findecanor wrote:
             | Bankman-Fried has already done it.
        
         | the_doctah wrote:
         | And they both peddle the same altruism smokescreen. Sociopath
         | leader playbook.
        
       | therobots927 wrote:
       | Excellent work. I'll have to wait until we get the print version
       | delivered to finish as I'm not signed into the new Yorker on my
       | phone.
       | 
       | I've always been a huge fan of Ronan Farrow's journalism and
       | willingness to speak truth to power. I think he's pulling at
       | exactly the right thread here, and it's very important to
       | counteract Altman's reputation laundering given that we run a
       | very real risk of him weaseling his way into the taxpayer's
       | wallet under the current administration.
        
         | bookofjoe wrote:
         | This is above your comment:
         | https://archive.is/2026.04.06-100412/https://www.newyorker.c...
        
           | throw4847285 wrote:
           | I suspect that they are perfectly capable of clicking an
           | archive link or better yet logging in as they are already a
           | subscriber. Maybe, like me, they enjoy reading the physical
           | magazine.
        
       | lnenad wrote:
       | This whole situation goes to show that yesterday's conspiracy
       | theorists are today's realists. What's happening to USA's
       | leadership and as a country and what's happening with with their
       | top companies is really scary for the rest of us. If this trend
       | continues we're all definitely gonna end up in a kleptocracy.
        
       | seba_dos1 wrote:
       | Looks like Betteridge's law of headlines applies here too.
        
       | josefritzishere wrote:
       | Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any
       | headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word
       | "NO."
        
       | just_once wrote:
       | Amazing that this article and an actual comment from Ronan Farrow
       | is this far down the list while...Scientists Figured Out How Eels
       | Reproduce (2022) has 6 times the points.
        
         | dang wrote:
         | This thread set off a software penalty called the flamewar
         | detector.* I turned that off as soon as I saw it.
         | 
         | (* This was predictable from the title, because the question in
         | it was inevitably going to trigger an avalanche of crap
         | replies. Normally we'd change the title to something less
         | baity, and indeed the article is so substantive that it
         | deserves a considerably better one. But I'm not going to change
         | it in this case, since the story has connections to YC - about
         | that see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=fa
         | lse&qu....)
        
       | pupppet wrote:
       | Ask Conde Nast if he can be trusted..
       | 
       | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/s/VWJVBNzc2u
        
         | simoncion wrote:
         | Uncrappified link: <https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments
         | /3cs78i/whats_the...>
        
       | HardwareLust wrote:
       | Of course he cannot be trusted. Anyone whose motivation is based
       | on greed is by nature untrustworthy.
        
         | throwway120385 wrote:
         | Even if your motivation is some utopian vision of the future,
         | you should not be trusted. Utopia is a thought experiment in a
         | philosophy of living taken too far, not something to be reached
         | for earnestly.
        
       | jesterson wrote:
       | Watch Altman's reaction in Tucker Carlson interview to the
       | question about (alleged) murder of OpenAI researcher Suchir
       | Balaji.
       | 
       | The overall response and particularly the body language speaks a
       | lot.
        
       | kmfrk wrote:
       | Gobsmacking details about Altmans' time as Y Combinator
       | president, in case anyone's wondering.
       | 
       | Fantastic reporting.
        
         | ronanfarrow wrote:
         | As is always the case with incredibly precise and rigorously
         | fact-checked reporting like this, where every word is chosen
         | carefully (the initial closing meeting for this one was nearly
         | eight hours long, with full deliberation about each sentence),
         | there is more out there on that subject than is explicitly on
         | the page.
        
           | kmfrk wrote:
           | One of the decidedly eerier parts of this story as you keep
           | reading are all the gaps between what people are _saying_
           | about Altman, and what they clearly _want_ to say about
           | Altman but _can 't_.
        
             | devmor wrote:
             | Throughout my life, what colleagues/friends are unwilling
             | to remark plainly on has been the most telling factor of
             | someone's character to me.
        
       | GlibMonkeyDeath wrote:
       | Disclaimer: I have no association with any AI company and have
       | never met Altman or any of the other top AI scientists.
       | 
       | The real question is: can _anyone_ be trusted if the fever dreams
       | of super-intelligence come true? Go ahead and replace Sam Altman
       | with someone else - will it make a difference? Any other CEO is
       | going to be under the same overwhelming pressure to make a profit
       | somehow. I think the OpenAI story is messier because it was
       | founded for supposedly altruistic reasons, and then changed.
       | 
       | Methinks many of Altman's detractors protesteth too much. He's
       | doing his job as it is defined (make OpenAI profitable.) Nothing
       | of substance in this article seemed to make him exceptionally
       | "sociopathic" compared to any other tech CEO. It goes with the
       | territory.
       | 
       | What depressed me most is that _trillions_ of dollars are being
       | raised for building what will undoubtedly be used as a weapon. My
       | guess is the ROI on that money is going to be extremely bad for
       | the most part (AI will make some people insanely rich, but it is
       | hard to see how the big investors will get a return.) Could you
       | imagine if the world shared the same vision for energy
       | infrastructure (so we could also stop fighting wars over control
       | of fossil fuels and spewing CO2?) A man can dream...
        
         | tim333 wrote:
         | People do vary even if none are perfect. Demis Hassabis has a
         | pretty good reputation amongst the AI leaders. Altman seems
         | unusually shifty.
        
       | almostdeadguy wrote:
       | Seems this got buried from the front page very quickly
        
         | ronanfarrow wrote:
         | There is dwindling space for sincere independent accountability
         | reporting on big tech like this to a) be created, since it's
         | incredibly resource-intensive and so many resources flow from
         | Silicon Valley, and b) actually reach people, since more
         | platforms are now owned or otherwise influenced by interested
         | parties.
         | 
         | Thank you for looking. Please do spread this kind of reporting
         | in your communities, and subscribe to investigative outlets
         | when you can.
        
           | big_toast wrote:
           | You can see the vote history here[1]. It's always hard to
           | know exactly why something gets buried. I was a little sad to
           | see the story down-ranked when I saw that you were here in
           | the comments.
           | 
           | But the discussion is generally pretty low quality with these
           | sort of posts. People react without having read the story, or
           | with whatever was on their mind already, or are
           | insubstantive, or simply low effort. I don't think you'll
           | lose k-factor not having a bigger post here.
           | 
           | Sometimes if you talk to the mods, they'll let you know their
           | perspective. I generally find they're correct that people are
           | much better at contributing/disseminating new knowledge to
           | the world on more technical topics here.
           | 
           | [1]: https://news.social-protocols.org/stats?id=47659135
        
             | throw4847285 wrote:
             | But isn't that circular? If the ranking algorithm used by
             | the mods tends to devalue articles like this because they
             | don't trust the user base to comment intelligently, doesn't
             | that alter the culture of this site to make that more true?
        
               | dang wrote:
               | I'm not sure what big_toast meant, but we do trust the
               | user base to comment intelligently (which sometimes works
               | and sometimes not), and we don't devalue articles like
               | this.
               | 
               | We do tend to devalue _titles_ like this, or more likely
               | change them to something more substantive (preferably
               | using a representative phrase from the article body), but
               | I 'm worried that if I did that here we would get howls
               | of protest, since YC is part of the story.
        
             | dang wrote:
             | Yes, I was surprised that it was downranked when I saw that
             | too. Then I realized it had set off the flamewar detector
             | and it was a simple matter to turn it off. I'm glad we got
             | to this in time, because sometimes we don't, and this was
             | an important case not to miss.
        
           | almostdeadguy wrote:
           | This was an excellent piece with many new pieces of
           | information in it. Thanks to you and your coauthor for
           | getting it released.
        
         | dang wrote:
         | It set off the flamewar detector. I've turned that off now.
         | 
         | I only saw this thread by chance and almost didn't look,
         | because the title made the piece sound like a flamebait blog
         | post. Fortunately I saw newyorker.com beside the title and
         | looked more closely.
        
       | innocenttop wrote:
       | Why is the story so downranked? Folks at HackerNews have
       | something to do with it ?
        
         | randycupertino wrote:
         | HN generally downvotes and/or flags anything that paints
         | ycombinator in a bad light. As Altman was president of yc from
         | 2014 to 2019 that could be why this is getting downvoted.
         | 
         | Articles critical of Airbnb, one of yc's biggest wins, also get
         | flagged and taken down.
        
           | dang wrote:
           | I'm not sure whether you meant this about moderator
           | interventions or not, but our actual practice is the
           | opposite:
           | 
           | https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu.
           | ..
           | 
           | As those comments explain, this has been the #1 rule of HN
           | moderation from the beginning. See also https://hn.algolia.co
           | m/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....
        
             | lovich wrote:
             | I don't think the poster you responded to was claiming that
             | moderators directly did this. The flagging system is open
             | to bias from the community at large and certain types of
             | articles(ex. Anything critical of the current admin) get a
             | bunch of real users organically flagging them.
        
         | dang wrote:
         | It off the flamewar detector, a,k.a. the overheated discussion
         | detector. I've turned that off now - this is obviously a
         | serious article.
        
       | throw4847285 wrote:
       | A new Ronan Farrow piece is a rare gift (and Marantz is no
       | slouch). Can't wait to read this in the physical magazine when it
       | arrives!
        
       | guzfip wrote:
       | > Lehane--whose reported motto, after Mike Tyson, is "Everyone
       | has a game plan until you punch them in the mouth"
       | 
       | lol do you think these guys have ever been hit? Let alone in the
       | face. They'd probably be less eager to mouth off as much as they
       | do if so.
        
       | game_the0ry wrote:
       | For those curious about how sama got to where he got and stayed
       | on top for so long, I recommend you read the book: The Sociopath
       | Next Door by Martha Stout.
       | 
       | I am fairly confident when I say this -- sama is a sociopath. I
       | don't know how anyone with solid intuition could even come to any
       | other conclusion than the guy is deeply weird and off-putting.
       | 
       | Some concepts from the book:
       | 
       | > Core trait: The defining characteristic is the absence of
       | conscience, meaning they feel no guilt, shame, or remorse.
       | 
       | > Identification: Sociopaths can be charming and appear normal,
       | but they often lie, cheat, and manipulate to get what they want.
       | 
       | > The Rule of Threes: One lie is a mistake, two is a concern, but
       | three lies or broken promises is a pattern of a liar.
       | 
       | > Trust your instincts over a person's social role (e.g., doctor,
       | leader, parent)
       | 
       | Check and check.
       | 
       | OpenAI is too important to trust sama with. He needs to go. In
       | fact, AI should be considered a public good, not a commodity pay-
       | as-you-go intelligence service.
        
         | unsupp0rted wrote:
         | I suspect there's some other category, which isn't really a
         | sociopath and isn't really a not-sociopath, which we don't have
         | a good definition for.
         | 
         | We only say a lot of CEOs are sociopaths because they're in
         | that third category we haven't named, where they're very good
         | at manipulating people, but also can feel conscience, guilt,
         | remorse, etc, perhaps just muted or easier to justify against.
         | 
         | E.g. if you think you're doing something for the betterment of
         | mankind, it doesn't really matter if you lie to some board
         | members some year during the multi-decade pursuit.
        
       | KellyCriterion wrote:
       | Na, it will be Dario instead of Sam, Id say? :-))
        
       | neonate wrote:
       | https://archive.ph/hOYMn
        
       | HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
        
       | aksss wrote:
       | "could", "may", "might" - these words do so much heavy lifting in
       | "journalism". Almost always it's an invitation to worry and be
       | miserable.
        
       | lenerdenator wrote:
       | If you are asking if a single human can be trusted with such a
       | responsibility, the answer is, by default, no.
        
       | romeroej wrote:
       | Can anybody tho?
        
         | morleytj wrote:
         | Yeah, some people can more than others.
        
       | jader201 wrote:
       | Am I the only one that feels like Claude is clearly winning code
       | generation, and Gemini in general LLM?
       | 
       | I just don't feel like OpenAI has a legitimate shot at winning
       | any of the AI battles.
       | 
       | Therefore, I feel like "Sam Altman may control our future" is a
       | far stretch.
        
         | dominotw wrote:
         | how is gemini winning in general llm. what is general llm .
        
           | SwellJoe wrote:
           | General LLM is what Apple is paying Google for.
        
         | guelo wrote:
         | Well I just canceled my Claude Pro subscription because of the
         | mysterious limits that I don't experience with codex, even
         | after paying for "extra usage". If Anthropic can't figure out
         | their capacity problems they are in trouble.
        
           | chrisjj wrote:
           | [delayed]
        
       | slg wrote:
       | One thing that stands out when reading profiles like this is the
       | number of positive and negative descriptions of the subject that
       | agree. For example, there seems to be little dispute that Altman
       | will happily say something that he knows/believes isn't true,
       | there's just a lot of people who are willing to forgive any lies
       | if the lies are in service of something they themselves agree
       | with.
        
         | palata wrote:
         | > there's just a lot of people who are willing to forgive any
         | lies if the lies are in service of something they themselves
         | agree with.
         | 
         | Or if the person lying is in a position of power?
        
       | ambicapter wrote:
       | > The day that Altman was fired, he flew back to his twenty-
       | seven-million-dollar mansion in San Francisco, which has
       | panoramic views of the bay and once featured a cantilevered
       | infinity pool, and set up what he called a "sort of government-
       | in-exile." Conway, the Airbnb co-founder Brian Chesky, and the
       | famously aggressive crisis-communications manager Chris Lehane
       | joined, sometimes for hours a day, by video and phone. Some
       | members of Altman's executive team camped out in the hallways of
       | the house. Lawyers set up in a home office next to his bedroom.
       | During bouts of insomnia, Altman would wander by them in his
       | pajamas. When we spoke with Altman recently, he described the
       | aftermath of his firing as "just this weird fugue."
       | 
       | These sociopaths are so good at giving away nothing. He managed
       | to engender sympathy instead of saying "I'm not gonna talk about
       | anything that happened then".
       | 
       | Also very weird how many of these people are so deeply-linked
       | that they'll drop everything they're doing just to get this guy
       | back in power? Terrifying cabal.
        
       | arionhardison wrote:
       | Hi @ronanfarrow -- I have only had one interaction with Sam
       | Altman in person, and I was advised to keep it to myself. I know
       | this crowd may not care, but Altman is absolutely terrified of
       | Black people -- not in any contextual sense, but in a visceral,
       | instinctive way. For someone who, as you put it, "controls our
       | future," this should matter.
       | 
       | FYI: I am by far not the only one to have experienced this and it
       | 100% impacts hiring and other decisions at OpenAI.
        
         | edbaskerville wrote:
         | Can you give more details?
         | 
         | It wouldn't particularly surprise me if Sam Altman were racist,
         | but I'm curious what the specific incident you observed was.
        
       | wk_end wrote:
       | This anecdote is so absurd it sounds like satire. This is the guy
       | with the $23M mansion?
       | 
       | > Amodei's notes describe escalating tense encounters, including
       | one, months later, in which Altman summoned him and his sister,
       | Daniela, who worked in safety and policy at the company, to tell
       | them that he had it on "good authority" from a senior executive
       | that they had been plotting a coup. Daniela, the notes continue,
       | "lost it," and brought in that executive, who denied having said
       | anything. As one person briefed on the exchange recalled, Altman
       | then denied having made the claim. "I didn't even say that," he
       | said. "You just said that," Daniela replied.
        
         | simoncion wrote:
         | He's a liar and untrustworthy. Based on their public
         | statements, that's a big part of why the board fired him.
         | 
         | Of course, (despite the fact that Altman previously publicly
         | stated that it was very important that the board can fire him)
         | he got himself unfired very quickly.
        
       | FpUser wrote:
       | >"Sam Altman may control our future"
       | 
       | TLDR but just the heading is already ugly. No single person no
       | matter how nice they're should be able to control our future.
       | Power corrupts, what fucking trust. We are supposed to be
       | democratic society (well looking at what is going on around this
       | is becoming laughable)
        
       | nielsbot wrote:
       | No one person control our future. Stop there.
        
         | mikkupikku wrote:
         | Yeah, but one person can fuck a lot of shit up.
        
         | _moof wrote:
         | Some people have far, far more power over our lives than
         | others. More than they deserve, frankly.
        
       | swingboy wrote:
       | It's really interesting reading about how these folks view LLMs.
       | Yeah, they're transformative, but I don't know that we're going
       | to be eating ramen in a Neo-Tokyo street bar anytime soon. So
       | much "A.G.I" mentioned in the article.
        
         | 0x3f wrote:
         | It's because they're really good at the kind of busywork the
         | average white collar job requires. Most people are out there
         | writing documents and making presentations. Only when you use
         | them for actual complexity does the shortfall become clear.
        
       | ninjahawk1 wrote:
       | OpenAI is like #3 or #4 of the AI companies right now in terms of
       | power, and last place in the court of public opinion.
       | 
       | I'd be more concerned about Anthropic both being in the good
       | graces of the public and having access to all of our computers
       | indirectly with Claude Code.
        
         | 0x3f wrote:
         | OpenAI has ~30x the userbase of Anthropic.
        
           | aduffy wrote:
           | I'm not sure how much of that converts to revenue. If it's
           | free plan users, that's just cost. You can say what you want
           | about "creating a training data moat" but that doesn't seem
           | like it's prevented the other labs from putting out excellent
           | models.
        
         | estearum wrote:
         | makes sense if you think the point of journalism is just to
         | take everyone down a notch instead of... um... informing the
         | public of bad actors
         | 
         | "the local drug-dealing pimp is so passe, we need to
         | investigate the most upstanding members of the community _just
         | to be sure_ " is a frankly insane strategy
        
       | killbot5000 wrote:
       | No. Why is this a question?
        
       | bijowo1676 wrote:
       | This article is just another typical New Yorker fluff piece that
       | tries to look deep but misses the actual point.
       | 
       | The biggest flaw is that it spends way too much time on high-
       | school level drama and "he-said-she-said" gossip about Sam
       | Altman's personal life instead of focusing on the actual
       | technical and corporate capture of OpenAI.
       | 
       | The author treats the "nonprofit mission" like some holy quest
       | that was "betrayed," when anyone with a brain in tech saw the
       | Microsoft deal as the moment the original vision died. Instead of
       | a hard-hitting look at how compute-monopolies are actually
       | forming (MSFT AMZN NVDA and circular debt dealing inflating the
       | AI bubble that could crash the economy), we get 5,000 words of
       | hand-wringing over whether Sam is a "nice guy" or a "liar."
       | 
       | Who cares???????
       | 
       | The board failed because they had no real leverage against
       | billions of dollars, not because they didn't write enough Slack
       | messages. It's a long-winded way of saying "Silicon Valley has
       | internal politics," which isn't news to anyone here.
        
       | simoncion wrote:
       | Can Sam "The board can fire me, I think that's important." Altman
       | be trusted?
       | 
       | If for no other reason, given what happened when the board fired
       | him... no. I'd say not.
        
       | ergocoder wrote:
       | I wonder if Sam might abandon the ship soon. Other co-founders
       | already did.
       | 
       | The main reason is that he gets all the downsides without the
       | upsides. I know $5B is a lot but, for a 700B company, it isn't.
       | If OpenAI was a regular for-profit, he would have been worth
       | >$100B already.
       | 
       | This is probably _one_ of the significant factors why other co-
       | founders left too. It 's just a lot of headaches with relatively
       | low reward.
        
       | asK1ajsh wrote:
       | The New Yorker is owned by Conde Nast just as Reddit. Conde Nast
       | has a deal with OpenAI:
       | 
       | https://www.reuters.com/technology/openai-signs-deal-with-co...
       | 
       | This is a damage control piece, and you see that the most
       | stinging comments here get downvoted.
        
       | primer42 wrote:
       | "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the
       | word no."
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
        
       | ambicapter wrote:
       | I didn't have the mental energy to read the whole thing but man
       | the final paragraph is some really good writing. Way to tie it
       | all in together.
        
       | atlgator wrote:
       | Saved you 18 months of investigative journalism: no.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-04-06 23:00 UTC)