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
“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.”
What we tested: 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.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“The Board should have been apprised that this was in the works.”
What we tested: OpenAI's board should have been told in advance that ChatGPT was being launched.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“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.”
What we tested: The former OpenAI board genuinely preferred to keep the company intact and acted in good faith in November 2023.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“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).”
What we tested: The Taylor/Summers essay attacks a strawman about safety, diverting from the board's actual concern of candor in firing Altman.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“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.”
What we tested: 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.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“The Board’s job is to make sure that doesn’t happen — not to cover Sam’s ass.”
What we tested: OpenAI's board should work to prevent AI causing significant harm to the world rather than protecting Altman.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“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:”
What we tested: OpenAI is a registered nonprofit receiving tax-exempt status based on its promise to deploy AI safely.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“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.”
What we tested: If Altman can't be trusted, safety at OpenAI could become a serious issue.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“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.”
What we tested: 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.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“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.”
What we tested: 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.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“As far as I can tell, Toner and the earlier board acted in good faith.”
What we tested: As far as Marcus can tell, Toner and the earlier OpenAI board acted in good faith.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“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.”
What we tested: If OpenAI cannot assemble a board that respects its legal filings and keep its promises, it must dissolve the nonprofit.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“OpenAI does not behave like a nonprofit and has not for a long time.”
What we tested: OpenAI does not behave like a nonprofit and has not for a long time.
Held from this post (3)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.