Sam Altman's sister files lawsuits against Sam alleging sexual abuse(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Sam Altman's sister files lawsuits against Sam alleging sexual abuse
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/07/openais-sam-altman-denies-sexual-abuse-allegations-made-sister-ann.html
54 comments
Do you seriously believe that Sam organised her shadowbanning on all platforms except Pornhub and OnlyFans?
The OpenAI drama isn't the only reality distortions that Altman has been accused of engaging in. PG himself has said Altman "is extremely good at becoming powerful" [0]. A former Reddit CEO in the past detailed the lengths he was willing to go to get his way[1], in reply to a post called, "What is the longest con you ever pulled", no less. One could say allegedly, but Altman did comment on the former CEO's accusation at the time, and one could also say in his defense that he was being sarcastic in his comment, but it is curious that regardless of whether you take Altman's comment seriously or sarcastically[2] -- in both cases it comes off as a brag that doesn't bother denying the accusation.
I don't know who's right in this case, but parents siding with the more successful and stable siblings doesn't seem too surprising. And if I'm not mistaken, Altman and his sister were both minors at the time, so I don't understand the people who are invested in taking sides. But it does make sense to point out that the parents also have a conflict of interest if something like this happened to two minors under the same roof -- who after all ends up taking the blame (fairly or unfairly) if the minors cannot be blamed?
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma... (he also said something in tweet form after Altman returned to OpenAI as CEO)
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the...
[2] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the...
I don't know who's right in this case, but parents siding with the more successful and stable siblings doesn't seem too surprising. And if I'm not mistaken, Altman and his sister were both minors at the time, so I don't understand the people who are invested in taking sides. But it does make sense to point out that the parents also have a conflict of interest if something like this happened to two minors under the same roof -- who after all ends up taking the blame (fairly or unfairly) if the minors cannot be blamed?
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma... (he also said something in tweet form after Altman returned to OpenAI as CEO)
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the...
[2] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the...
Yes I do as Sam does have the influence and power to do such things. There's a major reason why pieces and articles like this one gets censored a whole lot.
I don't know about other forums but I can tell you that Sam has had nothing to do with this on HN. I know that because I'm making the decisions and have had no interaction with Sam about it—or anyone else, for that matter, besides the commenters that I've replied to in these threads and an emailer I just spent the better part of an hour replying to.
The reason this story is getting flagged on HN (or censored, if you like - people mean whatever they want by that word) is that the community is rejecting it as off topic. Mods aren't deranking it.
The reason this story is getting flagged on HN (or censored, if you like - people mean whatever they want by that word) is that the community is rejecting it as off topic. Mods aren't deranking it.
You don't need to have interactions with Sam "about it" to have a vested interest in burying this story, which is exactly what you have allowed to happen.
I haven't buried this story. The users who flagged it are doing that. The data suggests they're doing that in good faith, as I've explained in several posts (for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42639323).
It's true that we (i.e. the moderators) sometimes turn flags off on a story, but we only do that when there's enough information in the story to support an intellectually interesting discussion, at least potentially. I don't believe that's the case here, and not because of Sam; the decision would be the same if you replaced his name with anyone else's. The "vested interest" here is not in protecting any person, it's in protecting HN for its intended purpose. I realize that not everyone agrees and not everyone likes this, but that's also the way HN works. Nobody, including me, gets all the threads they want on the frontpage.
It's true that we (i.e. the moderators) sometimes turn flags off on a story, but we only do that when there's enough information in the story to support an intellectually interesting discussion, at least potentially. I don't believe that's the case here, and not because of Sam; the decision would be the same if you replaced his name with anyone else's. The "vested interest" here is not in protecting any person, it's in protecting HN for its intended purpose. I realize that not everyone agrees and not everyone likes this, but that's also the way HN works. Nobody, including me, gets all the threads they want on the frontpage.
I'm 100% sure that in the past I've seen you say that you turn off flags on stories where HN has a vested interest because you don't want the obvious appearance that you're censoring it and you want to be neutral. Yet not only does this story not get that treatment, you personally dive in and make excuses and downvote commentors who, as expected, question the neutral nature of a site deeply involved with the subject matter. Don't want these types of accusations? Stick with your previously stated policy of disabling flagging on HN related topics.
No, the rule is that we moderate HN less, not more, when YC or a YC startup is involved in a story. In the present case, we haven't moderated the story at all, so there's nothing to do less of.
It's true that we've sometimes turned off or reduced the flags on stories in this category, but that has never been a rule.
It's true that we've sometimes turned off or reduced the flags on stories in this category, but that has never been a rule.
Well, you've pissed off a lot of people and I assure you that many are thinking the same thing I am. It makes Altman look more guilty and it makes you look complicit in covering that up. I'm actually surprised at how sociopathic the features of this site are. I can't think of anywhere else on the internet that's so clearly manipulated.
Like it getting flagged on HN?
Yes, he has that kind of pull. Look at how both the HN articles got flagged. Tons of people here defending him for some reason. OpenAI is a YC company after all.
There's a misconception that systematic harmful behavior has to be organized.
The truth is that many antisocial people generate a strong cult following and these people protect the abuser. Given Altman's followers are likely to be over-represented in tech companies, it find it plausible this happened without his intentional involvement.
The real issue we as a society agree that tech companies can have a massive effect on public discourse, yet we have not yet developed a legal framework to hold them accountable.
The truth is that many antisocial people generate a strong cult following and these people protect the abuser. Given Altman's followers are likely to be over-represented in tech companies, it find it plausible this happened without his intentional involvement.
The real issue we as a society agree that tech companies can have a massive effect on public discourse, yet we have not yet developed a legal framework to hold them accountable.
> I believe everything Annie says here.
How is this relevant?
How is this relevant?
Because if true it is not appropriate for him to be running OpenAI.?!?
Related:
Sam Altman responds to his sister's claim of sexual abuse
https://twitter.com/sama/status/1876780763653263770
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42630067)
Sam Altman responds to his sister's claim of sexual abuse
https://twitter.com/sama/status/1876780763653263770
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42630067)
My sister abused me (emotionally mostly, but occasionally hitting me or throwing water on me) for years growing up and lies about it to this day. People lie about this shit even when they have nothing to gain but attention.
This woman may very well be telling the truth, but she very well may be just trying to get a piece of the pie now that he's insanely rich. Don't just jump on board with the cancellation mob. Let the court do its job.
This woman may very well be telling the truth, but she very well may be just trying to get a piece of the pie now that he's insanely rich. Don't just jump on board with the cancellation mob. Let the court do its job.
Should we believe you that your sister abused you? How is your claim different from Annie’s?
I'm truly sorry you had to endure that growing up. It sounds as though you've confronted her about the abuse, but she wasn't able to offer you closure.
I hope you have or will eventually be able to heal from those experiences.
Speaking strictly from the US perspective, it's very difficult to prove abuse in court, even in civil court where the threshold is lower than criminal court.
I hope you have or will eventually be able to heal from those experiences.
Speaking strictly from the US perspective, it's very difficult to prove abuse in court, even in civil court where the threshold is lower than criminal court.
She's asking for 75k. Not even crumbs.
The court she has filled this case in requires there to be at least 75k worth of damages to proceed.
I’ve not read the filling myself (might read it later on, but also I might not), but the article says they are looking for a figure in excess of 75k, they can amend their filing later to increase their demand, or (if they win) leave the final figure to the decision of the jury.
(I means the jury will have a say in the figure either way, but stating what you want in the filing telegraphs to the jury what you actually want.)
All this is to say the figure in this filing isn’t the figure she will probably end up asking for.
(However, all civil courts can award you is money. So when all the person wants is to have their case heard. Have their side heard, and it’s not about the money, they will often ask for the minimum.)
I’ve not read the filling myself (might read it later on, but also I might not), but the article says they are looking for a figure in excess of 75k, they can amend their filing later to increase their demand, or (if they win) leave the final figure to the decision of the jury.
(I means the jury will have a say in the figure either way, but stating what you want in the filing telegraphs to the jury what you actually want.)
All this is to say the figure in this filing isn’t the figure she will probably end up asking for.
(However, all civil courts can award you is money. So when all the person wants is to have their case heard. Have their side heard, and it’s not about the money, they will often ask for the minimum.)
This was super helpful, thanks
They probably spend more than that on her per year alone.
I'm sure lawyers won't stop at $75k against a client worth billions.
I'm sure lawyers won't stop at $75k against a client worth billions.
Yeah. Sam's reply https://x.com/sama/status/1876867051215585542
if she wanted to use this sum to aggravate her addictions, it would be understandable why they don't want to accommodate her, also in light of the fact that for Sam it would certainly be less of a bother than dealing with this whole thing, if they are going down the most difficult path for them (the family)
it is possible that they are doing it for her own good, otherwise they would have given her even $1m a year, making her sign that all the accusations were false if they had been as perverse as some commentators in this thread suggest
it is possible that they are doing it for her own good, otherwise they would have given her even $1m a year, making her sign that all the accusations were false if they had been as perverse as some commentators in this thread suggest
It’s also possible (likely even) that she is telling the truth.
ilikehurdles(1)
How is this flagged??? I read HN every day and follow openai closely. So surprised it took me 2 days later to find this only by searching deliberately for it.
I have read the comments about users flagging it, but I think this one deserves an override because it is extremely relevant that a CEO of a top tech company is involved. If this was Nadella or Musk I think it would be unflagged, no?
I have seen more discussion this week on HN about Mangione than this.
I have read the comments about users flagging it, but I think this one deserves an override because it is extremely relevant that a CEO of a top tech company is involved. If this was Nadella or Musk I think it would be unflagged, no?
I have seen more discussion this week on HN about Mangione than this.
[flagged]
Users flagged it. Moderators didn't do any moderation on it.
In the past haven’t you disabled flags on posts where YC has a vested interest? This is a big story with no HN post now.
Shocking everything against YC's interests always gets flagged. The flagging system is completely abused.
Why would normal HN users flag this? It's an interesting story that is very pertinent to the technology world.
Why would normal HN users flag this? It's an interesting story that is very pertinent to the technology world.
That's all false, like the other things you've been posting.
For the record I upvoted your comment but it doesn’t seem to have increased your score. Am I shadowbanned from voting? That would be pretty suspect if so.
You aren't shadowbanned from voting.
Then why don’t my votes work? He was light grey (0 points) before and after my upvote.
Your votes work the same as anybody else's. It's the voting algorithm that's complicated.
xenospn(1)
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QDczBduZorG4dxZiW/sam-altman...
Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38311509
I believe everything Annie says here.