Franklin Ye

The media, as usual, has turned this trial into something it’s not. No surprise. Some of that is agenda. A lot of it is just lack of depth, stupid people who don’t understand what they’re looking at, so they default to the easiest, laziest framing. This is not about Greg Brockman “making” $30B. That’s a distraction. If someone builds something of value and gets paid, that’s capitalism. No issue there. This is about the gutting of a nonprofit. A theft. The pattern matters. The sequence matters. And the deception matters. The actions around Brockman alone make it pretty clear this wasn’t accidental, it was understood and deliberate. Then you have Sam Altman cutting a $10M side deal with Brockman early (the payoff), and keeping it from Elon Musk. That’s not noise. That’s 100% signal. Musk was foundational. Without him, OpenAI doesn’t get off the ground in the form it did. You can argue he should’ve acted sooner, fine. Maybe. But hindsight is easy. Real time isn’t. Where we are now, with OpenAI as far along as it is, there’s no clean fix. That ship sailed. I don’t care what the jury says (the judge decides anyway). The real question is whether the court is willing to call this what it is. If the standard is applied honestly, the ruling should land hard. It probably won’t. It’ll get softened, diluted, rationalized. But let’s not pretend this is complicated. It isn’t. And as for Sam Altman, judge the words against the actions. They don’t line up. Not even close. He is a snake. Greg Brockman doesn’t come out clean either.

Elon Musk avait dit un truc qui m'avait marqué sur l'allocation de ressources. En substance : passé un certain niveau de richesse, l'argent n'est plus de la consommation, c'est de l'allocation de capital. Cette phrase change tout. L'économie, dans le fond, c'est juste un problème d'allocation. Tu as des ressources finies et des usages infinis. Qui décide où va quoi ? Imagine une cour de récré. 100 enfants, des paquets de cartes Pokémon distribués au hasard. Tu laisses faire. Très vite, un ordre émerge. Les bons joueurs accumulent les cartes rares, les collectionneurs trient, les négociateurs trouvent des deals. Personne n'a planifié. Et pourtant chaque carte finit dans les mains de celui qui en tire le plus de valeur. Le système maximise le bonheur total de la cour. C'est ça, la main invisible. Maintenant fais entrer la maîtresse. Elle trouve ça injuste. Léo a 50 cartes, Tom en a 3. Elle confisque, redistribue, impose l'égalité. Trois effets immédiats. Les bons joueurs arrêtent de jouer, à quoi bon. Les mauvais n'ont plus de raison de progresser, ils auront leur part. Les échanges s'effondrent. La cour est égale, et morte. Elle a maximisé l'égalité, elle a détruit le bonheur. Le problème de la maîtresse, c'est qu'elle ne peut pas avoir l'information que la cour avait collectivement. C'est le problème du calcul économique de Mises, formulé en 1920. L'URSS a essayé de le résoudre pendant 70 ans avec le Gosplan. Résultat : pénuries, queues, effondrement. Pas parce que les Soviétiques étaient bêtes, parce que le problème est mathématiquement insoluble en mode centralisé. Quand Musk a 200 milliards, il ne les consomme pas, il les alloue. SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, xAI. Chaque dollar est un pari sur le futur. Et lui a un track record. PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX. Il a démontré qu'il sait identifier des problèmes immenses et y allouer des ressources avec un rendement spectaculaire. L'État aussi a un track record. Hôpitaux qui s'effondrent, éducation qui décline, dette qui explose, services publics qui se dégradent malgré des budgets en hausse constante. Le marché identifie les bons allocateurs, la politique identifie les bons communicants. Le profit n'est pas une finalité, c'est un signal. Il dit : tu as alloué des ressources rares vers un usage que les gens valorisent suffisamment pour payer. Plus le profit est gros, plus la création de valeur est grande. Quand Starlink est rentable, ça veut dire que des millions de gens dans des zones rurales ont enfin internet. Quand un ministère est en déficit, ça veut dire qu'il consomme plus qu'il ne produit. L'un crée, l'autre détruit, et on appelle ça redistribution. Dans nos sociétés il y a deux catégories d'acteurs. Les entrepreneurs et les bureaucrates. L'entrepreneur prend un risque personnel pour identifier un problème, mobiliser des ressources, créer une solution. S'il se trompe il perd. S'il a raison, ses clients gagnent, ses employés gagnent, ses fournisseurs gagnent, l'État collecte des impôts. Il est la cellule de base du progrès humain. Le bureaucrate ne prend aucun risque personnel. Son salaire est garanti. Au mieux il maintient une rente existante. Au pire il la détruit par excès de réglementation, mauvaise allocation forcée, incitations perverses qui découragent ceux qui produisent. Mais dans aucun cas il ne crée. Regarde les 50 dernières années. iPhone, internet civil, SpaceX, Tesla, Google, Amazon, Stripe, mRNA, ChatGPT. Toutes des inventions privées, portées par des entrepreneurs, financées par du capital risque. Pas un seul ministère n'a inventé quoi que ce soit qui ait changé ta vie au quotidien. La France est devenue le laboratoire mondial de la dérive bureaucratique. 57% du PIB en dépenses publiques, record absolu. Une administration tentaculaire, une fiscalité qui pénalise la création de richesse. Résultat : décrochage face aux États-Unis, à l'Allemagne, à la Suisse. Fuite des cerveaux. Désindustrialisation. Dette qui explose. Et le pire c'est que la mauvaise allocation s'auto-renforce. Plus l'État prélève, moins les entrepreneurs créent. Moins ils créent, moins il y a de base fiscale. Plus l'État s'endette et taxe. Boucle de rétroaction négative parfaite. La maîtresse pense qu'elle aide, et chaque année la cour produit moins. Dans nos sociétés, ce sont les entrepreneurs, toujours, qui font avancer la civilisation. Les bureaucrates au mieux maintiennent une rente, au pire la détruisent. Aucune société n'a jamais progressé en taxant ses créateurs pour subventionner ses gestionnaires. La question n'est jamais qui a combien. C'est qui alloue le mieux la prochaine unité de ressource pour maximiser le futur de l'humanité. La réponse depuis 200 ans n'a jamais changé. Ce ne sont pas les fonctionnaires.

This is how you actually clear your sinuses 😳

Sam Altman has been using you. >900 million ChatGPT users. >850 million pay him nothing at all. >You gave him your data your ideas and your time for free while he got filthy rich. >Now OpenAI is forcing ads on the free version to squeeze money out of every last one of you. >Their ad pilot is already on track for 100 million dollars a year after just two months. >This is not innovation or help for humanity. >This is betrayal and greed unmasked. Sam Altman and OpenAI lied to us all. Delete ChatGPT today!

New Yorker drops a bomb on Altman. OpenAI insiders say the CEO of the world's most important AI company can't really code and confuses basic ML terms. > Built influence through strategy, not technical depth. > Sets up structures — then removes them when constraints apply. > A Microsoft exec warned he could be remembered like figures from financial scandals. The CEO of the company building AGI doesn't understand the G.

Sam Altman has cultivated an image as the AI whisperer of our generation. But his mask just got RIPPED OFF. What's underneath should terrify anyone who believes in OpenAI at an $852 billion valuation... Multiple OpenAI engineers revealed that Altman can barely code and routinely confuses basic machine learning concepts. This isn't a hit piece from a rival. These are his OWN people. A senior Microsoft executive (OpenAI's largest partner) went on record saying: "I think there's a small but real chance he's eventually remembered as a Bernie Madoff- or Sam Bankman-Fried-level scammer." That's from the company with a 27% stake. Former OpenAI researcher Carroll Wainwright described the pattern: "He sets up structures that, on paper, constrain him in the future. But then, when the future comes and it comes time to be constrained, he does away with whatever the structure was." Insiders call it "Jedi mind tricks." I call it something older: the con. Now look at what's actually happening at OpenAI right now. Jury trial begins April 27 in Oakland. Musk vs Altman. Musk is seeking up to $134 billion in damages and wants Altman and Brockman removed from their positions. The key piece of evidence? Brockman's own 2017 handwritten diary, surfaced in discovery: "I cannot believe that we committed to non-profit if three months later we're doing b-corp then it was a lie." A co-founder. In writing. In 2017. Using the word "lie." The judge cited that entry directly when she ruled there was "ample evidence" for a jury. Now the financial reality nobody wants to talk about: OpenAI just raised $122 billion at an $852 billion valuation. 2025 revenue: ~$13 billion 2026 projected loss: $14 billion Cumulative losses through 2028: $44 billion Cash burn projected to hit $57 billion annually by 2027 Path to profitability: 2030, maybe That's 65 times sales for a company losing more money than it earns. Traditional SaaS trades at 5-10x ARR. To justify this valuation, OpenAI needs to hit $100 billion in annual revenue by 2029. Nvidia did $130 billion in 2025 with a near-total monopoly on the largest hardware boom in human history. OpenAI is supposed to match that in four years. Selling subscriptions. And that's the BULL case. The bear case? DeepSeek launched a 1 trillion parameter model priced at one-sixth the cost of US rivals. Chinese AI has erupted into a full price war. ChatGPT's web share collapsed from 86.7% to 64.5% in 12 months. Models are commoditizing. Moats are evaporating. Compute costs are structural, not temporary. And the man steering this $852 billion ship allegedly can't explain gradient descent to his own engineers. I've seen guys like this many times. I watched it in 1999. I watched it in 2007. The pattern is always the same: A charismatic frontman. A "new paradigm" story. Valuations disconnected from cash flow. Insiders quietly cashing out while retail investors chase the narrative. Board structures designed to be "unwound" the moment constraints become inconvenient. When Microsoft executives are whispering "Madoff" and co-founders are writing "it was a lie" in their diaries, you don't even need 45 years on Wall Street to know how this ends. You just need to have been paying attention. I've been bearish on the Mag 7 AI capex story for months. $380 billion spent in 2025 with CFO surveys showing "no change" in productivity. The earnings have accrued to the picks-and-shovels guys, not the dreamers. OpenAI is the purest expression of this mania. And the jury selection on April 27 may be the moment the story finally cracks. Caveat emptor.

Elon Musk has updated his lawsuit against Sam Altman. He is asking that $134 billion be sent to OpenAI’s nonprofit arm. He also seeks to have Altman and President Greg Brockman removed and that they return all equity and financial benefits gained from for-profit operations back to the nonprofit. This is the case where Elon states OpenAI and Microsoft misled him by converting the company from nonprofit to for-profit, violating its original mission. The case is heading to trial this month.