There's more to this story. https://www.nongaap.com/p/openai-startup-fund-gp-hallucinati...
I'm inclined to go with this interpretation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39875809
But I will say that if it turns out that Sam's latest scheme for world domination has been foiled by him dogfooding his own product, then it's very very funny
I think the linked interpretation is very, very reasonable and it's a big reason why I tried to deemphasize all the "stuff" you've highlighted in my piece.
I think most of us would agree the person in question - if they're real - is exhibiting signs of a mental health crisis.
That said, I wouldn't have written the piece if I felt the aforementioned interpretation was the primary explanation to everything I'm seeing in the disclosures. I proactively tried as I went through the disclosures.
The issue I'm having is - regardless of what this person is able to concoct with ChatGPT or other methods - they shouldn't have been able to insert themselves and their Vespers "creation" into OpenAI Startup Fund I GP LLC's CA filings even if they wanted to.
One could argue they either needed to "hack" into the CA filing to insert themselves as Manager/CEO or someone at OpenAI allowed it happen (knowingly or unknowingly is tbd).
It also doesn't help OpenAI won't explain 1) how it happened, 2) why it took so long to catch it, and 3) why it wasn't reported to regulators once discovered:
"[OpenAI] declined to elaborate on how exactly fabricated documents came to be filed with the state of California."
I recognize this sounds a bit conspiratorial, but there are elements (I didn't cover) to this person's filings involving OAI that looks very thoughtful/intentional and are hard to dismiss as random/coincidental/hallucinated actions of someone that likely needs help.
And OAI's "response" didn't help address the actual issues I'm seeing.
(I'm not sure what the security processes for online filings are, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone sufficiently motivated and ambivalent about it being a felony could provide the necessary fake documentation, social engineering and/or brute force hacking to get their registered business given a notional role in someone else's unrelated business on a nonbinding document, at least until the other business noted and corrected the record. I know GPT "hallucinates" real names, but picking the existing aliases of the sort of person most likely to go down those rabbit holes seems quite the coincidence. And it'd have been odder if OpenAI's response was anything other than a generic spokesperson denial)
Regardless of how shady OpenAI's aims may have been, I genuinely think the root cause of this is that someone at OpenAI foolishly used ChatGPT to automate boring tax paperwork. ChatGPT decided "John Q Vesper" or whatever was a statistically plausible name for the CEO, and this dumb mistake wasn't caught by a human because nobody wants to read tax paperwork if they think a magical talking robot is capable of what seems like a routine task. I am assuming OpenAI didn't intend to tell a ridiculous and easily falsifiable lie in its tax filings (especially if that lie contradicted their public explanations about Altman's management of the fund!). OpenAI probably wanted the paperwork to say "Sam Altman."
FWIW the IRS is generally forgiving of good-faith tax errors, but I would suspect "we spent so long lying about our chatbot that we ourselves forgot that it's dumber than a pigeon and doesn't actually understand human language" doesn't count. Considering how many two-bit lawyers got in significant legal trouble for relying on ChatGPT hallucinations, it would be outrageous if OpenAI manages to get off scot-free here.
Anyway, my point was:
1. The disclosures point to "OpenAI Startup Fund I" being under the control of a fake company and CEO.
2. The fake company and CEO in question looks like the creation of an AI hallucination.
3. If a fake company and CEO were intentionally used by OpenAI, this isn't a minor infraction and there are highly consequential ramifications to consider given Altman's prior "ownership" of the fund, reported concerns it was being used to circumvent OpenAI Board oversight/governance, and participation in the fund was allegedly a means to invest in OpenAI.
Much of the piece is admittedly a helter-skelter collection of disclosures and explanations focused on supporting #1 and I don't really get into my rationale for #3.
Overall, it makes for bad long-form reading, but it did compel BI to do the needed journalistic follow-up work, made OAI acknowledge the filing was "illegitimate", and pushed the story forward.
We now know, according to OpenAI:
1. The company and CEO doesn't exist to their knowledge. 2. The document indicating this fake company and CEO controlled "Fund I" isn't legitimate and completely fabricated. 3. They're not willing to elaborate/explain how or why these "fabricated" entities got filed by them.
It's ugly spaghetti prose, but I'd say the write-up worked as intended.
I too am not an expert on corporate law, but very few governments make it legal to lie on these types of forms.