The tl;dr here is that something that most people in Silicon Valley already know: Sam Altman lies a lot. Just constantly. About big and little things. And every effort to hold him accountable has failed. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may-control-our-future-can-he-be-trusted
Sam Altman May Control Our Future—Can He Be Trusted?

New interviews and closely guarded documents shed light on the persistent doubts about the head of OpenAI, Ronan Farrow and Andrew Marantz write.

The New Yorker
@evacide @regendans The article loses instant credibility by using an AI generated image.

@Nienkez @evacide @regendans

Or — and hear me out on this wild idea — mock and scorn that AI image separately from evaluting the 50-70 *pages* of content making the same points you’d make.

@cascheranno @evacide @regendans sure, but if you use it, you loose credibiltity in criticising it. Just pay a photographer for a creepy picture of Altman. It is not hard. Instead you say Altman is an untrusthworthy man, but I prefer to use his crap than pay an actual human.
@Nienkez @evacide @regendans lose? Ok. Zero out? Given how many editorial and management pressures exist between author and publication, I just grimace and boost my skepticism.
@cascheranno @evacide @regendans fair enough. I think it is a weird choice.
@Nienkez @evacide I mean, the article Brings The Goods. It’s gathered specifics, ties allegations to dates & names, and really ties down details that eventually get overwritten when victors rewrite the history.
@cascheranno @evacide But if you don't have the courage of your convictions, it is pointless. You let them rewrite history.

@Nienkez @evacide I mean, are we talking about the board of directors who the article discusses, people pressured to not speak out, the writer(s) of this article, managing editors, whoever controls their hiring /firing?

Having pissed off a billionaire, I can vouch for how one’s choices shift when it’s “fight and be broke, vs. affording to send your kids to college”.