“Not consistently candid”
We recorded 7 claims from this post. 7 can’t be checked. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (7)
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: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“The more that comes out, the less likely any of these three theories seems to be correct.”
Our reading: The popular theories of the OpenAI board's firing of Altman (D'Angelo conflict of interest, an incompetent board, Toner as a communist) look less and less likely to be correct as more information comes out.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“Altman gave up his board seat. If there was really nothing that even looked like legitimate beef against him, I doubt he would have conceded this.”
Our reading: Marcus doubts that Altman would have given up his OpenAI board seat if there had really been nothing against him that even looked like a legitimate grievance.
No horizon
Only if: if there was really nothing that even looked like legitimate beef against him
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“It may well be worth tens of millions of dollars; even for Altman, that’s not trivial.”
Our reading: Altman's indirect stake in OpenAI through Y Combinator may be worth tens of millions of dollars.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“By any reasonable measure they have strayed, very far, from that mission. That’s primarily on Sam.”
Our reading: By any reasonable measure, OpenAI has strayed very far from its founding mission of safe, broadly beneficial, openly shared AI, and that is primarily Altman's responsibility.
No horizon
Qualifier: by any reasonable measure
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“If the Board was making a step towards bringing them back to their original mission, of AI for human interest rather than for profit, we should be praising them, not burying them.”
Our reading: If the OpenAI board was trying to return OpenAI to its original mission of AI for human interest rather than profit, it should be praised, not condemned.
No horizon
Qualifier: if the board was trying to return OpenAI to its original mission
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“OpenAI characterizes Altman’s indirect stake as a “small investment”, but OpenAI and Altman should nonetheless disclose the value of that stake, My guess is that it is at least worth many tens of millions, at the new $86B valuation, possibly more, more than many people will earn in a lifetime.”
Our reading: OpenAI and Altman should disclose the value of Altman's indirect stake, which Marcus guesses is worth at least many tens of millions of dollars at the $86B valuation.
No horizon
Qualifier: at the $86B valuation
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“If he was already working on the chip deal in May at the Senate, that should have been disclosed, too.”
Our reading: If Altman was already working on the Rain chip deal when he testified to the Senate in May 2023, he should have disclosed it.
No horizon
Qualifier: if he was already working on the Rain chip deal in May 2023