Hacker News Reader

This is an example of the “tu quoque” fallacy [0], and has no bearing on the claim they’re making about Sam.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Does Gizmodos sketchy past discredit the evident discrepancy between Sam's words and deeds? Or do you mean that one excuses the other? I really don't see your point.

So this article isn't truthful then, or you'd just like us to have a vague distrust of Gizmodo and the article is true?

What about whataboutism?

Isn't what you did here a perfect example of how – if we were to take it seriously – any discussion could be "stopped" merely by whatabouting about the messenger?

I think Sam Altman can defend himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Edit: Atoav’s comment is more accurate.