This is a poor plagiarism of a much more detailed Wired article https://www.wired.com/story/openai-buy-ai-chips-startup-sam-... which is also much clearer than OP about what parts would raise concerns: Rain touting the Altman connection heavily despite its minimal results and apparent inability to convince anyone else to so much as write a letter of intent, and the highly unusual divestment orders suggesting some very unsavory connections, which get added to the big pile of other concerns about Altman. (See what _Time_ has reported today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38550240 )
Do you have any evidence the article was plagiarised from the source, other than the fact they write about the same thing at about the same time? It's a pretty serious allegation.
Dude. Do you see a single source in this article or line indicating that OP did any original research or reporting whatsoever? Did you not look at the earlier Wired article and notice how all the language in OP is copied straight from it with some rearranging? Do all the ads and signups and links to other 'articles' on this site really look legit to you? Did you just come out of a cave and the phenomenon of blogs thinly plagiarizing regular media to create content-slurry to sell ads on is novel to you? The question is not 'what evidence do I have that it plagiarized', the question is 'why on earth are you not assuming by default that this site is plagiarizing until proven otherwise'?
The burden of proof doesn't work that way, and your initial comment offered no elaboration about why it was plagiarised. An explanation was called for.
The headline makes it sound like is not entirely ethical, and then I remember reading “Before OpenAI, Altman was asked to leave by his mentor [Paul Graham] at the prominent start-up incubator Y Combinator, part of a pattern of clashes that some attribute to his self-serving approach”[0]
That said, who knows at this moment more about the topic than Altman?
I say because the headline can induce to a wrong feeling, but, if was not a company related or close to the latest developments of AI, who are more ready than them?
It seems the big takeaway tech executives took from WeWork wasn't that it was wrong but that that self-dealing is okay as long as you have enough leverage to get away with it.
It's pretty clear now this is the reason that Altman got fired in the first place.
Maybe one of the reasons, but not clear to me it's the main or only one. Another potential reason is that he was attempting to individually manipulate board members into trying to support him in getting board member Helen Toner fired. There's also the rumor of the Q* advance which the board apparently heard of via some concerned employee(s), not from Altman.
Maybe there was some final straw that got the board to act, but could have been accumulated grievances about Altman not being candid with them.
All of those other things are supporting considerations, but none of those alone would be enough to have triggered this drama.
However gross self-dealing is generally a for-cause grounds for termination everywhere. If the employees hadn't bought into the cult, we'd be grouping Altman in with Neumann and the other charlatans.
I mean, this guy who has a track record of conflicts of interest, was just shown that it's ok to exploit his conflicts of interest as long as others also get rich.
