Brianna Macey

Scam Altman has a incredible track record for being a con artist I don't think anyone has a "former ally turned enemy" list this big with directly with people he worked with A massive new 18-month investigation dropped, revealing the full list of people who worked directly with Sam Altman and now openly say they don’t trust him - they call him a liar, manipulator, scam artist, and worse These are his co-founders, board members, top executives, and biggest partners. Not random haters: • Elon Musk (OpenAI co-founder) ➝ Betrayed the original nonprofit, open & safe AI mission and turned it into a closed profit machine What he says: Calls him "Scam Altman" and “Sam Altman lies as easily as he breathes” • Ilya Sutskever (OpenAI co-founder & former Chief Scientist) Why: Discovered Sam repeatedly lied about safety protocols and bypassed board oversight. What he says/did: Compiled 70+ pages of memos, Slack messages, and evidence proving Sam’s lies → helped fire him. Said he didn’t think “Sam is the guy who should have his finger on the button for AGI” • Dario Amodei (former OpenAI President, now Anthropic CEO) Why: Left because of Sam’s leadership and broken safety promises What he says: “The problem with OpenAI is Sam himself.” Called the company under Sam "mendacious” (full of lies) and compared it to Big Tobacco knowingly selling something dangerous. Accused him of a clear “pattern of behavior” • Helen Toner (former OpenAI Board Member) Why: Sam made it impossible for the board to do its job through constant deception What she says: He was “outright lying to the board” and created a “toxic atmosphere” of psychological pressure • Tasha McCauley (former OpenAI Board Member) Why: Complete loss of trust after years of the same behavior What she says: Senior leaders reported Sam cultivated a “toxic culture of lying” • Jan Leike (former Superalignment co-lead) Why: Sam deprioritized real safety work for shiny products What he says: Resigned publicly saying he “lost confidence” in OpenAI leadership and that the company was “losing its way” on alignment • Mira Murati (former CTO - one of Sam’s closest longtime collaborators) Why: Lost all confidence in his leadership as they approached AGI What she says: Told insiders “I don’t feel comfortable about Sam leading us to AGI” and said his playbook is to say whatever he needs to get what he wants, and if that fails, destroy your credibility • Microsoft executives (including major tensions with CEO Satya Nadella) Why: Felt constantly misled on deals and partnerships What they say: A senior exec warned he could be remembered as a “Bernie Madoff or Sam Bankman-Fried-level scammer” • Paul Graham (Y Combinator co-founder - Sam was YC President) Why: Long pattern of deception during his time running YC What he says: Privately told YC colleagues, “Sam had been lying to us all the time" • Loopt board & early employees (Sam’s first startup) Why: History of chaotic and deceptive behavior What they did: Employees went to the board twice trying to get him fired over lack of honesty and shady behavior These are his co-founders, board members, closest executives, and major partners who actually worked with him all say the exact same things - chronic lying, manipulation, broken trust, toxic culture, scam & deception

David Sacks: Nonprofits need to manufacture problems in America to stay in business David Sacks: “Here's the systemic problem with nonprofits and NGOs. Let me just contrast it with business. In business, you set up a company, the company has to make revenue, it has to make profits. And if it doesn't, it's going to go out of business, right? Because it'll lose money. So there's a feedback mechanism from the market. With an NGO, nonprofit, what have you, they raise money. They don't sell things. They fundraise from donors in order to engage in an activity, but what happens over time is the actual activities may stop mattering, and all that really matters is they're able to keep fundraising, right? Because they're just trying to figure out a justification to keep going back to donors to get more and more money out of them. That's what perpetuates the organization.” Chamath: “ Why wouldn't the Southern Poverty Law Center focus on southern poverty? Which is an issue that actually still exists in some shape or form. Why do you call it one thing, focus on racism, and then all of a sudden whip up fake racism?” Sacks: “I do think that at one time in this country, civil rights was a noble cause, a very legitimate cause. We had the legacy of segregation and Jim Crow, and there were groups that were set up to basically change that, and they succeeded. But again, no one in an NGO or a nonprofit ever declares victory. When Obama got elected in 2008, regardless of whether you liked Obama or not, or agreed with his politics, I thought that at that point, most people could see that this was not a racist country. Whatever else you could say, the fact that the highest office in the land was not denied to anybody showed that this country was not holding people back based on their skin color. And instead of just basically packing up shop and saying, ‘Okay, we've achieved our goal,’ the goalposts all got moved. Remember, that's when the whole anti-racism thing started, was around Obama's second term. If they just said at that time, ‘You know what, we're going to move the goalposts from equality of opportunity to equality of results. We're going to basically make everyone equal at the finish line,’ which is to say, identity socialism. People would've said, ‘Eh, no, we're not on board for that.’ So instead, they created this whole new terminology to justify it. And it's taken us years to unpack that and realize what's really going on.”