Fun fact: I consider myself a pretty bad writer and initially started the newsletter to try and get better at it. The results have been mixed on that front so apologies if you got confused by the "purple prose". I'm trying.
Anyway, my point was:
1. The disclosures point to "OpenAI Startup Fund I" being under the control of a fake company and CEO.
2. The fake company and CEO in question looks like the creation of an AI hallucination.
3. If a fake company and CEO were intentionally used by OpenAI, this isn't a minor infraction and there are highly consequential ramifications to consider given Altman's prior "ownership" of the fund, reported concerns it was being used to circumvent OpenAI Board oversight/governance, and participation in the fund was allegedly a means to invest in OpenAI.
Much of the piece is admittedly a helter-skelter collection of disclosures and explanations focused on supporting #1 and I don't really get into my rationale for #3.
Overall, it makes for bad long-form reading, but it did compel BI to do the needed journalistic follow-up work, made OAI acknowledge the filing was "illegitimate", and pushed the story forward.
We now know, according to OpenAI:
1. The company and CEO doesn't exist to their knowledge.
2. The document indicating this fake company and CEO controlled "Fund I" isn't legitimate and completely fabricated.
3. They're not willing to elaborate/explain how or why these "fabricated" entities got filed by them.
It's ugly spaghetti prose, but I'd say the write-up worked as intended.
Anyway, my point was:
1. The disclosures point to "OpenAI Startup Fund I" being under the control of a fake company and CEO.
2. The fake company and CEO in question looks like the creation of an AI hallucination.
3. If a fake company and CEO were intentionally used by OpenAI, this isn't a minor infraction and there are highly consequential ramifications to consider given Altman's prior "ownership" of the fund, reported concerns it was being used to circumvent OpenAI Board oversight/governance, and participation in the fund was allegedly a means to invest in OpenAI.
Much of the piece is admittedly a helter-skelter collection of disclosures and explanations focused on supporting #1 and I don't really get into my rationale for #3.
Overall, it makes for bad long-form reading, but it did compel BI to do the needed journalistic follow-up work, made OAI acknowledge the filing was "illegitimate", and pushed the story forward.
We now know, according to OpenAI:
1. The company and CEO doesn't exist to their knowledge. 2. The document indicating this fake company and CEO controlled "Fund I" isn't legitimate and completely fabricated. 3. They're not willing to elaborate/explain how or why these "fabricated" entities got filed by them.
It's ugly spaghetti prose, but I'd say the write-up worked as intended.