Here's an example of a "technically true" but deceptive statement: he says that he has no financial interest in OpenAI. But there's no way that someone couldn't be the head of a huge, influential organization and not be able to use it to obtain power. For instance: at this point, Microsoft pretty much owns it (they have 100% access to the models and could cut it off at any time). Is it merely coincidence that Microsoft agreed to purchase power from the fusion company he backed?

Another example: I've noticed that a lot of times I'll get "network errors" while chatting with ChatGPT. However, this is while I'm SSH'd into a remote machine with zero latency. I think they realized that they could shift the blame from their server capacity issues to "network errors" because that made the consumer feel like it was their fault, not OpenAI's.

Another example: One of the developers of EleutherAI talked about how they tried to implement OpenAI's original model based on their paper. They were struggling to get it to work. So they actually talked to researchers who wrote the paper and discovered that a lot of what was in the paper wasn't what they did at all.

Worst of all, he is trying to create a crypto token. That would disqualify almost anyone in my book.

A recent bit is about his push for AI regulation for safety. but the real reason is probably to build a moat to protect his business.

Call for regulation then threaten to pull out of EU because of regulation?