3 ms·

> Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting Critiquing an oops in the headline, on principle, not defending anyone... In the headl

by neilv 2y ago

> Ex-OpenAI board member reveals what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting Critiquing an oops in the headline, on principle, not defending anyone... In the headline, they say "reveals", but I think journalism convention is to be clear that this is only an uncorroborated claim. The body of the article, OTOH, does a good job of attributing claims. Though it looks like the one person was their only source, and the article includes hearsay. So, the situation is that they have one person (who obviously lost a power play, and might be disgruntled), alleging that another person was dishonest, without corroboration. I don't see that the article gives any reason to take these allegations at face value. (Especially when the whole topic is alleged dishonesty. Why is one person implicitly truthful and correct, and the other person consequently definitely not.) So, "reveals" doesn't seem proper, journalism-wise.

unholiness 2y ago
I read "what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting" as "What the board was thinking". It's been pretty ambiguous where the motivations of the board's sudden actions were coming from, and this Helen Toner saying more than she's said before. It's not a trial of Sam, it's an autopsy of the board.
- neilv 2y ago
  Good point, but interpreted that way, isn't it still a whole lot of claims by a board member, of what they and other board members were thinking, claims about their perceptions of alleged facts, and claims about their reasons for doing what they did? (People don't always tell the truth about such things.) Although an individual reader's gut and other information might conceivably lead one to take all those claims at face value, I don't think it meets a journalism standard of evidence for "reveals" in a headline. IIUC, headlines and soundbites have a lot of influence on our understanding of the world.

by neilv 2y ago

unholiness 2y ago

I read "what led to Sam Altman's brief ousting" as "What the board was thinking". It's been pretty ambiguous where the motivations of the board's sudden actions were coming from, and this Helen Toner saying more than she's said before. It's not a trial of Sam, it's an autopsy of the board.

neilv 2y ago
Good point, but interpreted that way, isn't it still a whole lot of claims by a board member, of what they and other board members were thinking, claims about their perceptions of alleged facts, and claims about their reasons for doing what they did? (People don't always tell the truth about such things.) Although an individual reader's gut and other information might conceivably lead one to take all those claims at face value, I don't think it meets a journalism standard of evidence for "reveals" in a headline. IIUC, headlines and soundbites have a lot of influence on our understanding of the world.