(đ§”1/11) For the past year and a half, I've been investigating...

OpenAI was founded on the premise that A.I. could be the most dangerous invention in human historyâand that its C.E.O. would need to be a person of uncommon integrity. We lay out the most detailed account yet of why Altman was ousted out by board members and executives who came to believe he lacked that integrity, and ask: were they right to allege that he couldn't be trusted?
A thread on some of of our findings:
Separately, Dario Amodeiâwho left to co-found Anthropicâkept years of private notes on Altman and Brockman. More than 200 pages of related documents, never before publicly disclosed, have circulated in Silicon Valley. In one document, Amodei writes that Altman's âwords were almost certainly bullshit.â
Opinions vary on the extent to which we should consider these traits benign or malign. Altman attributes the criticism to a tendency, especially early in his career, âto be too much of a conflict avoider."
In late 2022, Altman assured the board that features in a forthcoming model had been approved by a safety panel. Board member Helen Toner requested documentation. She found that the most controversial features had not, in fact, been approved.
In 2023, as the company was preparing to release GPT-4 Turbo, Altman apparently told Murati that the model didn't need safety approval, citing the company's general counsel, Jason Kwon. But Kwon said he was "confused" about where Altman had gotten that idea.
The piece describes in detail how its executives considered enriching the company by playing world powersâincluding China and Russiaâagainst one another, perhaps starting a bidding war for advanced A.I. technology. (The plan was dropped after several employees talked about quitting. An OpenAI representative said it was just one of many ideas "batted around at a high level.")
Some of the lawyers involved defended their work as "an independent, careful, comprehensive review" and one of the new board members said there was "no need for a formal written report." Many others disagreed:
But internal records show that the founders had private doubts about the nonprofit structure as early as 2017. Brockman, Altman's co-founder, wrote in a diary entry: "cannot say that we are committed to the non-profit . . . if three months later we're doing b-corp then it was a lie."
OpenAI has since recapitalized as a for-profit entity.
The piece details a set of public and internal safety commitments that former researchers say were abandoned. Several safety-related teams at the company have been dissolved. The Future of Life Institute recently gave OpenAI an F on existential safetyâalongside every other company, except for Anthropic, which got a D, and Google DeepMind, which got a D-.
Altman told us he still prioritizes safety, and that "we still will run safety projects, or at least safety-adjacent projects.â
In the course of our reporting, multiple people within rival companies reached out to insinuate to us that Altman sexually pursues minors, a narrative persistent in Silicon Valley which appears to be untrue. We spent months looking into the matter and could find no evidence to support it.
A.I. does already have life-saving applications, from medical research to weather warnings. Altman has supported OpenAI's growth with promises of a superabundant future.
But the dangers are also no longer a fantasy. A.I. is already being deployed in military operations around the world. Researchers have documented its power to rapidly identify chemical warfare agents. OpenAI faces seven wrongful-death lawsuits alleging ChatGPT prompted suicides and a murder. A.I. could soon cause severe labor disruption, perhaps eliminating millions of jobs. The U.S. economy is increasingly dependent on a few highly leveraged A.I. companies and some experts warn of a bubble and recession risks.
OpenAI has one of the fastest cash burns of any startup in history, relying on partners that have borrowed vast sums. A board member told us, âThe company levered up financially in a way thatâs risky and scary right now.â (OpenAI disputes this.)
If the bubble pops, much more than one company is at stake.
I hope you take the time for a long-read in this case, and subscribe to @NewYorker to support this kind of investigative reporting: newyorker.com/magazine/2026/âŠ








