4 ms·
But Altman would be a good source. I don't like Kara Swisher, but Altman seems like a credible source here (if that is her source). He surely knows high up peop
by ALittleLight 3y ago
But Altman would be a good source. I don't like Kara Swisher, but Altman seems like a credible source here (if that is her source). He surely knows high up people at OpenAI and may have talked to them.
- lmm 3y agoHe has every reason to claim that "top folks" were on his side regardless of whether it's true, and nothing to lose if it's false.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- psswrd12345 3y ago"But Altman would be a good source." No he wouldn't. This is the definition of a biased source. I am sure he would provide a totally unbiased view of why his own Board found it necessary to suddenly take him out completely of his own company when he is THE public face of a massively growing industry. This space is so incestuous and protecting of its own at its own expense. Good grief.
- sparky_z 3y agoDid the sentence "He surely knows high up people at OpenAI and may have talked to them." not clue you into the joke?
- p1esk 3y agoIt did not.
- ALittleLight 3y agoUnbiased? That's such a ridiculous thing to type. You think someone intimately involved and leaking information to the press is going to be unbiased? Crazy. Swisher is reporting what her sources say - not writing an encyclopedia article. Sam would've been a good source - even if a biased one. Looks like it was true by the way, even if Sam was her source. Still very confused as to how you could think "unbiased" would even be a possible qualification for a source here much less a necessary one. Just curious - do you think news articles are unbiased too?