The OpenAI board was right
We recorded 8 claims from this post. 4 were checked against evidence. 4 can’t be checked. 1 more is held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (8)
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
“I probably don’t have to tell you, but that’s complete bullshit. And stupid, obviously refuted bullshit at that.”
Our reading: OpenAI's claim that its voice's resemblance to Scarlett Johansson was coincidental is false.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: Earlier casting evidence is context outside the denial's target period.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“I can’t tell you what happened to Sam’s caps lock, but obviously the claim that the resemblance to ScarJo was a “coincidence” was a lie. Sam knew perfectly well what the character sounded like.”
Our reading: Sam Altman knew the voice resembled Johansson's Her character, so the coincidence claim was a lie.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The public record is largely circumstantial and includes interested-party accounts.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“They said it wasn’t intentional, but of course it was.”
Our reading: OpenAI intentionally made its voice resemble Scarlett Johansson's.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The primary production account comes from the company whose conduct is disputed.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Artists and writer and actors don’t want their work to be used without their permission; if you want to use their stuff, you should compensate them, and get their permission.”
Our reading: Those who want to use artists', writers' and actors' work should compensate them and get their permission.
No horizon
Qualifier: if using creators' work
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“Sam got away with a lot for a long time, but people are starting to see through the ruse.”
Our reading: People are starting to see through Sam Altman's ruse after he got away with a lot for a long time.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Rhetoric
“Spin is a way of life at OpenAI; telling the truth is not.”
Our reading: OpenAI habitually spins rather than tells the truth.
No horizon
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“It’s a pattern.”
Our reading: Sam Altman's lack of candor, seen in his statements to the Senate about OpenAI equity, his lies about Helen Toner and his lies about Scarlett Johansson, is a pattern.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The equity evidence does not establish whether the Senate answer was a misleading omission or material deception.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Gary Marcus has seen enough, and hopes that the new OpenAI board recognizes that Sam’s behavior is not consistent with what one would expect of a nonprofit that has pledged to help humanity.”
Our reading: The new OpenAI board should recognize that Sam Altman's behavior is inconsistent with a nonprofit pledged to help humanity.
No horizon
Held from this post (1)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: OpenAI's voice assistant demo will never work robustly as advertised.