[gwern]

This is a poor plagiarism of a much more detailed Wired article https://www.wired.com/story/openai-buy-ai-chips-startup-sam-... which is also much clearer than OP about what parts would raise concerns: Rain touting the Altman connection heavily despite its minimal results and apparent inability to convince anyone else to so much as write a letter of intent, and the highly unusual divestment orders suggesting some very unsavory connections, which get added to the big pile of other concerns about Altman. (See what _Time_ has reported today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38550240 )

[ChrisArchitect]

And heavily discussed then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38506660

[YPPH]

Do you have any evidence the article was plagiarised from the source, other than the fact they write about the same thing at about the same time? It's a pretty serious allegation.

[gwern]

Dude. Do you see a single source in this article or line indicating that OP did any original research or reporting whatsoever? Did you not look at the earlier Wired article and notice how all the language in OP is copied straight from it with some rearranging? Do all the ads and signups and links to other 'articles' on this site really look legit to you? Did you just come out of a cave and the phenomenon of blogs thinly plagiarizing regular media to create content-slurry to sell ads on is novel to you? The question is not 'what evidence do I have that it plagiarized', the question is 'why on earth are you not assuming by default that this site is plagiarizing until proven otherwise'?

[YPPH]

The burden of proof doesn't work that way, and your initial comment offered no elaboration about why it was plagiarised. An explanation was called for.

[engcoach]

This isn’t a court of law, it’s the internet, and there is no “innocent until proven guilty” here.