“They both went through yCombinator, and both of them have sold products that don't do what they said it would based on what it might do in the future.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Like Rabbit's Jesse Lyu, Sam Altman has sold products that don't do what he said they would, based on what they might do in the future.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Ed Zitron wrote it
Where's Your Ed At, The Rot-Com Bubble, paragraph 58.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment wyea-rotcombubble-4979a5-a1
We recorded 17 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2024-06-03. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Observation
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
From the speaker
- both of them have sold products
- don't do what they said it would
- based on what it might do in the future
Our interpretation
- Assess the product allegation about Altman/OpenAI, with Rabbit as the comparison. The Y Combinator connection does not establish that allegation.
- The ordinary reading requires a material mismatch between a sales representation and the product delivered, with future capabilities used to promote the purchase.
- The claim concerns sales before the post. Its starting date is unspecified, so the historical window has no invented lower bound.
- Disclosed limitations, unsuccessful individual outputs, and features explicitly advertised for later release do not by themselves establish a misleading capability representation.
Counts as supported if: An identifiable OpenAI product sold before June 3, 2024, an attributable sales representation, and contemporaneous tests showing a material failure to deliver that representation, alongside evidence that future capabilities helped sell it.
Counts as contradicted if: Evidence identifying the representations at issue and showing that the delivered products met them, or that the alleged discrepancies concern clearly disclosed future features. One accurate advertisement cannot disprove every possible example.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Unresolved
The record was checked, and the evidence available by the cutoff does not settle it.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
The Rabbit comparison has documented substance, but it does not establish the allegation about Altman. The examined OpenAI announcement disclosed that advanced voice was forthcoming, and Altman publicly acknowledged fabricated answers. Neither disclosure disproves every possible misleading pitch. Without an identified promise, sale and matching product test, the central allegation remains unsettled.
Limitations
- The claim leaves the relevant OpenAI product and representation unspecified.
- The historical review is not an exhaustive audit of every Altman statement or OpenAI sale.
Evidence (4 items)
Context only: rabbit inc.,
the most popular apps.
Why it matters here: Rabbit advertised broad app operation while separately describing user training as a future capability. This establishes Rabbit's pitch, not an OpenAI misrepresentation.
- Publisher
- rabbit inc.
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: WIRED,
did not work
Why it matters here: A firsthand launch review documents failure of an advertised Rabbit integration. That supports the comparison's factual basis but cannot establish the allegation about Altman.
- Publisher
- WIRED
- Kind of source
- Independent measurement
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: OpenAI,
in the coming weeks.
Why it matters here: The launch announcement expressly made the new voice mode a future release. Its absence at announcement therefore does not alone establish a false representation about the delivered product.
- Publisher
- OpenAI
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: ABC News,
entirely made up.
Why it matters here: In an original interview, Altman warned about fabricated answers and discouraged reliance on the system as a primary factual source. Hallucinations alone therefore do not prove a broken promise of factual reliability.
- Publisher
- ABC News
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
Identify the pre-post sales representation and product purchase, then compare its stated terms with reproducible contemporaneous tests and any relevant disclosures.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Where's Your Ed At, The Rot-Com Bubble
They both went through yCombinator, and both of them have sold products that don't do what they said it would based on what it might do in the future.
- Where
- paragraph 58
- Published
- 2024-06-03
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment wyea-rotcombubble-4979a5-a1: Current. Outcome: Unresolved. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.