Sam Altman's sister, Annie Altman, claims Sam has severely abused her
lesswrong.com
lesswrong.com
I initially was leaning to this being a high possibility of a delusion springing from a mentally unstable person, for all the reasons other commentators are mentioning. But, two things in particular struck me that changed my mind:
1. She apparently mentioned the abuse to her mother as a child.
2. She describes childhood behaviour consistent with someone who has experienced sexual abuse (i.e. thoughts of suicide, weird night behaviour like taking baths, body issues as she got older).
A small child doesn't have any incentive to make accusations, or to pretend to have been assaulted. If true, this should be taken seriously. Her mother is still alive, and there may be doctors, relatives or others that would be able to substantiate these points.
Finally, why has this post (and previous related posts) been repeatedly flagged? It's very troubling, I expect this from some HN users, but would have thought the HN moderators would have unflagged (or reposted) it upon consideration of the seriousness, importance of the subject matter, and undeniable relevance to the tech industry. At minimum, you would think someone would have unflagged them to avoid the appearance of bias and favorable treatment to the former YC president. At this point HN looks really sleazy.
Why is HN taking a side here?
But, I don’t even know if this person is actually his sister.
On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog.
Can you link to something about it? That behavior rings a bell
> Finally, why has this post (and previous related posts) been repeatedly flagged? It's very troubling, I expect this from some HN users
I'm not too sure if it's concerning YC in some way or just the techbro crowd being itself. Downvotes are typical here with child abuse related topics in general and especially if it concerns tech. But also there's a possibility that's just a random person and not really his sister.
> Users flagged it. (That's the usual answer to this question, as explained in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.)
> (Posting this belatedly because the question has been coming up today.)
I know that doesn't actually answer your question. So does dang.
> undeniable relevance to the tech industry
Absolutely. I really hope dang reconsiders their inaction. They've been remarkably consistent on this topic though.
https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/170997828542437802...
Reminds me of a recent story of a college professor who claims another college professor has hacked her computer/phone/internet accounts and is constantly making coded references to her private conversations. https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-harassment-case-that-h...
Obviously false: the claim was posted on twitter!
Otherwise, there's a question: why could user publish a site that they think is shadowbanning them?
She also has a financial motivation as she's using the attention to solicit Venmo donations
Still can be a kernel of truth here though, seems like Sam certainly has not treated her in a healthy way
Please be aware victims often live in constant paranoia and fear of their abuser(s) and others who resemble them.
So rather than discuss whether someone is actually shadowbanned or their WiFi hacked, maybe refocus on the obvious fear it displays of (still) being manipulated, threatened or harassed by their abuser(s).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37785072
IIRC she had made these claims in the past but not so publicly.
Her current profession/circumstances would suggest some significant childhood sexual abuse.
https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/170997828542437802...
But posts on twitter. Not all then?
Believe the victim, full stop, unless and until evidence actively contradicts their statements.
The accused is still presumed innocent until proven guilty, but there’s no value in presuming the accuser is lying… doing so is just presuming the accuser is guilty of perjury / fraud before _they_ are proven guilty.
If there had been some more reasonable basis to the claims, "unhinged" should not count against them - abuse is one of the common causes of mental instability, and people with mental instability are often targets.
Sounds like a chicken-and-egg problem that's impossible for armchair observers like us to decipher either way.
Now, dismiss my 40+ years of living with CPTSD if it makes you more comfortable, but I never (once) “repressed” memories, and I certainly never had someone else walk me through memories I didn’t actively have to try and help me “recover” details… what I had was memories I really, really didn’t want to think about or give a lot of credence to, because doing so would push me into a flashback state, especially if I focused on the more horrifying details or tried too hard to establish a clear and consistent sequence. I tried, hard, to bury those memories — I still try hard to bury them, though nowadays more by trying to bury them with acceptance rather than bury them through avoidance — but memories I’ve always had and didn’t want is not the same as memories I didn’t have and after the intervention of another now do.
I don’t see a lot of reasons to see her claims as either unreasonable or unhinged… if they’re as consistently stated as presented in the linked post they should likely be presumed to be true, especially if stated in public, for exactly the same reason all such claims should be presumed true.
Of course, with the recent news they are getting more attention, and once again, we have it surface. I will admit it’s a little weird that he has not sued her for such ruinous claims, but this is a family issue, so I can understand not escalating the issue.
As the author concludes, "However, Annie has not yet provided what I would consider direct / indisputable proof that her claims are true. Thus, rationally, I must consider Sam Altman innocent.”
To those complaining that this topic keeps getting removed from YC, imagine if every random allegation (with no proof) against some CEO got discussed.
I personally flagged this post as I have seen the same allegations with no change in information posted so many times.
I've had doctors mention stuff like this to me before and I've never taken it as an insult. I appreciated the empathy for my having to deal with insurance. Am I weird for thinking this is not offensive at all?
When I went to college in Berkeley I went to a couple rationalism adjacent events in the city and saw there was a huge overlap of that EA/Rationalism/Silicon Valley startups people. Never saw Sam Altman at those, but met a couple YC founders and other people who knew him and spoke generally well of him.
He said something along the lines that countries should make an agreement to stop AGI research, and if a rogue nation starts developing advanced AGI anyway, other countries should be willing to call an airstrike on the datacenter. Because he believes AGI is that dangerous.