[DalasNoin]

I feel like this is more interesting than the original post. Though I am not sure what I am supposed to make out of this: is it 1. shady operations using fake identities with their signatures or 2. an early example of OAI trying to use AI for making money through investments? I lean towards the first one. I mean maybe there is an explanation which makes this seem more reasonable. Do people create boards with fake directors and owners for companies?

[nicklecompte]

The Substack was badly written, and it took me a long time to figure out what their point was. And I might be wrong! I got lost in the purple prose.

Regardless of how shady OpenAI's aims may have been, I genuinely think the root cause of this is that someone at OpenAI foolishly used ChatGPT to automate boring tax paperwork. ChatGPT decided "John Q Vesper" or whatever was a statistically plausible name for the CEO, and this dumb mistake wasn't caught by a human because nobody wants to read tax paperwork if they think a magical talking robot is capable of what seems like a routine task. I am assuming OpenAI didn't intend to tell a ridiculous and easily falsifiable lie in its tax filings (especially if that lie contradicted their public explanations about Altman's management of the fund!). OpenAI probably wanted the paperwork to say "Sam Altman."

FWIW the IRS is generally forgiving of good-faith tax errors, but I would suspect "we spent so long lying about our chatbot that we ourselves forgot that it's dumber than a pigeon and doesn't actually understand human language" doesn't count. Considering how many two-bit lawyers got in significant legal trouble for relying on ChatGPT hallucinations, it would be outrageous if OpenAI manages to get off scot-free here.

[nongaap]

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.

[lurker919]

Hilarious!