Sam Altman Is Full Of Shit
We recorded 15 claims from this post. 2 were checked against evidence. 13 can’t be checked. 3 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (15)
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
“The second possible explanation — and the most plausible in my opinion — is that OpenAI simply pirated her likeness and then tried to bring her onboard in a failed attempt to eliminate any potential legal risk.”
What we tested: In Zitron's opinion, the most plausible of two explanations is that OpenAI simply pirated Scarlett Johansson's likeness and then tried to bring her on board, in a failed attempt to eliminate any potential legal risk.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“Just so we are abundantly, painfully, earnestly clear here, OpenAI lied to the media multiple times.”
What we tested: OpenAI lied to the media multiple times about the Sky voice.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“It's time to actively push back on Altman when he says that GPT-5 will be "similar to a virtual brain," or a "super smart person who knows absolutely everything about your life," or a "super-competent colleague," or that it'll "replace 95% of marketing tasks,"”
What we tested: People should push back on Altman's claims that GPT-5 will be like a virtual brain, a super-competent colleague, or will replace 95% of marketing tasks.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“I'll cut to the chase: it's time to stop listening to anything that Sam Altman has to say.”
What we tested: People should stop listening to anything Sam Altman says.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“Sam Altman is full of shit, and his reign at OpenAI has been defined far more by its empty promises than any realized dreams.”
What we tested: Sam Altman is full of shit, and his reign at OpenAI has been defined far more by empty promises than by any realized dreams.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“He needs us to humor — even if he rejects the notion — the idea that AI could be considered a "creature" because doing so allows him to add further mystique and hype to distract from the fact that he doesn't seem to know anything and OpenAI doesn't seem to be innovating.”
What we tested: Altman needs people to entertain the idea that AI could be considered a 'creature', even if he rejects the notion, because doing so lets him add mystique and hype that distracts from the fact that he doesn't seem to know anything and OpenAI doesn't seem to be innovating.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“This is not a person that should be making decisions about the future of the tech industry, nor should he be allowed to spout fan fiction and automatically have it covered as gospel.”
What we tested: Sam Altman should not be making decisions about the tech industry's future, and his claims should not be covered uncritically.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“it's time for artificial intelligence companies to start showing us something, and it's time for OpenAI to stop being given any credit or quarter to tell us what it "will" do until it shows us.”
What we tested: OpenAI should get no credit for claims about what it will do until it demonstrates results.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“The AI reality distortion field feels like a giant con, used to keep media attention (and traffic) flowing to ChatGPT so that Altman can continue claiming that "generative AI is the future" when it's yet to prove itself necessary, essential, or capable of overcoming its massive energy, compute and training data needs. Or, for that matter, a financially-viable service.”
What we tested: Generative AI has yet to prove itself necessary, essential, able to overcome its energy, compute and data needs, or financially viable.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“where products are built upon a foundation of stolen content interpreted by a model that doesn’t actually know anything — because AI can’t, by definition, know anything.”
What we tested: AI products are built on stolen content and AI models cannot, by definition, know anything.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“Questions must be asked of these founders, and follow-up questions asked based on what they say, and their reckless, stupid ideas must be faced with suspicion and a complete lack of the benefit of the doubt.”
What we tested: These founders (Altman and the other tech leaders discussed in the post) must be asked questions and follow-up questions, and their reckless, stupid ideas must be met with suspicion and a complete lack of the benefit of the doubt.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“Failing to interrogate these people will cause immeasurable harm to the creatives they're stealing from, and anyone in the media that believes that Altman and his ilk won't come for their work is living in a fantasy land.”
What we tested: Failing to interrogate these people will cause immeasurable harm to the creatives they are stealing from; separately and unconditionally, anyone in the media who believes Altman and his ilk won't come for their work is living in a fantasy land.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“Embrace that which actually delivers value to your lives, not the theoretical promises of any number of monotonous billionaires that want to turn every website into fuel for a machine that continually gets things wrong.”
What we tested: Generative AI systems trained on web content continually get things wrong.
What happened: The dated snapshot reports hallucination rates of 2.5% for GPT 4 Turbo, 4.6% for Gemini 1.5 Pro and 7.4% for Claude 3 Opus on document summarization. These recurring errors support the ordinary reading, although the automated scoring and restricted task do not establish a universal error rate. (Vectara, )
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“Yet they will fail to perpetuate further misery if they are interrogated with the suspicion they deserve.”
What we tested: If AI companies are scrutinized with suspicion, they will fail to cause further harm.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“Push back against the vague promises of artificial intelligence.”
What we tested: People should push back against vague promises about AI.
Held from this post (3)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The record does not meet the current rules. Our reading, not assessed: In the week before the post, OpenAI repeatedly lied about a voice product, dissolved its AI safety team, and saw two major figures resign.