Disturbing and misleading efforts to defame Helen Toner through misdirection
We recorded 13 claims from this post. 3 were checked against evidence. 10 can’t be checked. 3 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (13)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“The 3.5 API (geared towards programmers as a backend tool) was available beforehand, but that’s not of course the consumer-directed product with gimmicks like word-by-word typing to give a false impression of humanness that ultimately went viral.”
Our reading: ChatGPT, unlike the earlier GPT-3.5 API, was a consumer product using gimmicks like word-by-word typing to give a false impression of humanness.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: Earlier model availability rests on a contemporaneous community report, which does not identify an official product named GPT-3.5 API [e2].
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“The Board should have been apprised that this was in the works.”
Our reading: OpenAI's board should have been told in advance that ChatGPT was being launched.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“The fact that the Board agreed in November (when they did not see an absolute safety issue of the sort that would require the end of the company) to dissolve itself and to restore Altman to CEO rather than let the company dissolve (once virtually all the employees threatened to leave) shows that their preference for keeping the company was genuine, and that they acted in good faith.”
Our reading: The former OpenAI board genuinely preferred to keep the company intact and acted in good faith in November 2023.
No horizon
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“Fundamentally, the essay attacks a strawman, viz. that the firing of Altman was somehow precipitated by an immediate safety concern), thereby diverting from the board’s actual, stated concern (candor).”
Our reading: The Taylor/Summers essay attacks a strawman about safety, diverting from the board's actual concern of candor in firing Altman.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The complete essay was unavailable; the retrieved reporting cannot establish what the full text omitted.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“The degree to which they diverted from that core issue that led to Sam’s firing is genuinely disturbing, given that the board is our last and only line of defense if Sam chooses for economic reasons to do something genuinely dangerous.”
Our reading: The degree to which the new board members diverted from the core issue that led to Altman's firing is genuinely disturbing, because the board is the last and only line of defense if Altman chooses, for economic reasons, to do something genuinely dangerous.
No horizon
Qualifier: if Altman chooses for economic reasons to do something genuinely dangerous
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“The Board’s job is to make sure that doesn’t happen — not to cover Sam’s ass.”
Our reading: OpenAI's board should work to prevent AI causing significant harm to the world rather than protecting Altman.
No horizon
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“But OpenAI has been and continues to be a California-registered 501(3)(c) nonprofit, pledged not to profits, but to humanity – and still getting tax-exempt status on the basis of their promise to deploy AI safely:”
Our reading: OpenAI is a registered nonprofit receiving tax-exempt status based on its promise to deploy AI safely.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The packet lacks dated records confirming continued California registration and federal exemption through May 30, 2024; this does not establish that either had lapsed.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“Of course, there is a connection between safety and candor, and an obvious one at that: if Altman can’t be trusted, safety could become a serious issue.”
Our reading: If Altman can't be trusted, safety at OpenAI could become a serious issue.
No horizon
Only if: if Altman can't be trusted
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“The failure of two members of the new board (include Taylor, who chairs that Board) to draw that connection, coupled with their misdirection and unfair attack on Toner, is absolutely terrifying.”
Our reading: The failure of two new board members, including chair Taylor, to draw the connection between candor and safety, together with their misdirection and unfair attack on Toner, is absolutely terrifying.
No horizon
Scope: two members of the new board, including Taylor
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“If OpenAI does eventually develop deeply risky technology, it is incumbent on the nonprofit’s board to address that, and if they can’t trust Altman, I don’t see they can do their job.”
Our reading: If OpenAI eventually develops deeply risky technology, the nonprofit's board has a duty to address it, and Marcus does not see how the board can do that job if it cannot trust Altman.
No horizon
Only if: if OpenAI eventually develops deeply risky technology
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“As far as I can tell, Toner and the earlier board acted in good faith.”
Our reading: As far as Marcus can tell, Toner and the earlier OpenAI board acted in good faith.
No horizon
Qualifier: as far as I can tell
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“If they cannot assemble a board that respects the legal filings they made, and cannot behave in keeping with their oft-repeated promises, they must dissolve the nonprofit, exactly as the organization Public Citizen has argued.”
Our reading: If OpenAI cannot assemble a board that respects its legal filings and keep its promises, it must dissolve the nonprofit.
No horizon
Qualifier: if they cannot assemble a board respecting their legal filings
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“OpenAI does not behave like a nonprofit and has not for a long time.”
Our reading: OpenAI does not behave like a nonprofit and has not for a long time.
No horizon
Held from this post (3)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: The board seems to have accurately described firing Altman because it could no longer trust him, not for immediate safety violations.