The sockpuppet posted an AR-15 graphic mocking AI safety warnings.
If anyone from the AI safety community or the EA community posted this image in response to warnings about AI, I fully expect they’d be (rightly) banned from future events. In reality, this was posted by a sockpuppet run by a super PAC funded by a16z & OpenAI’s Greg Brockman
The EA network has I think done a great job of calling out and pushing out anyone calling for violence. It is to put it mildly infuriating to see AI labs now funding orgs organizing sock accounts to pretend to be AI safety people calling for violence making it look like us.
A few months ago, I found an anonymous sockpuppet account linked to the OpenAI/a16z super PAC. Now, @TaylorLorenz and I have uncovered two more — and they're even more brazen than the first.
I'm glad that Leading The Future stepped up to take responsibility for this.
I'd like to see the same from OpenAI, as evidence suggests they may be more involved than they've let on...
Just two days before this story dropped, OpenAI released a statement where they claimed "OpenAI does not direct the activities of LTF, or have visibility into their operations." Is that so?
Both of the sockpuppets we identified (largely posting obnoxious slop, with a mere 600 and 1300 followers respectively) were followed by not just PAC affiliates but also @jasonkwon, OpenAI's chief strategy officer, Chris Lehane's boss, and the person overseeing OpenAI global affairs! Did he somehow find both of these obscure accounts by accident and like their content enough to follow them for fun? Or does he have *some* visibility into the operations of the PAC?
The last sockpuppet I identified, with fewer than 100 followers, was followed by Anna Brockman (@theannabrockman) herself. At times, it posted in ways that seemed to indicate that they were being fed specific non-public information by what I can only imagine was OpenAI global affairs:
If OpenAI global affairs is secretly involved with this PAC, it wouldn't be that surprising -- their head, Chris Lehane, has been publicly reported to have been involved in setting it up. He was also was the mastermind of the Fairshake crypto super PAC that it was based on. Multiple apparent operatives for the new PAC seem to be Lehane's past allies.
What would be surprising is OpenAI lying about this in press releases, to their employees and to the public. I'm not saying they are but I do think they need to answer some hard questions about how they came across these sockpuppet accounts, how the PACs learned about the internal politics of their child safety coalition, etc.
And whether or not they previously knew about it, they do now. Greg Brockman (@gdb), OpenAI's president, has committed $50 million for the PAC but only paid out $25. If he was really opposed to astroturfing like this, it'd be easy for him to pull out and not provide the other half, or make it conditional on them ceasing these activities.
If he doesn't do that, what does it say about what OpenAI truly does and does not endorse?
The sockpuppet posted an AR-15 graphic mocking AI safety warnings.
If anyone from the AI safety community or the EA community posted this image in response to warnings about AI, I fully expect they’d be (rightly) banned from future events. In reality, this was posted by a sockpuppet run by a super PAC funded by a16z & OpenAI’s Greg Brockman
Users express bafflement and disapproval that journalists are ignoring the sockpuppet account scandal involving A16z and an OpenAI executive.
The EA network has I think done a great job of calling out and pushing out anyone calling for violence. It is to put it mildly infuriating to see AI labs now funding orgs organizing sock accounts to pretend to be AI safety people calling for violence making it look like us.
A few months ago, I found an anonymous sockpuppet account linked to the OpenAI/a16z super PAC. Now, @TaylorLorenz and I have uncovered two more — and they're even more brazen than the first.
I'm glad that Leading The Future stepped up to take responsibility for this.
I'd like to see the same from OpenAI, as evidence suggests they may be more involved than they've let on...
Just two days before this story dropped, OpenAI released a statement where they claimed "OpenAI does not direct the activities of LTF, or have visibility into their operations." Is that so?
Both of the sockpuppets we identified (largely posting obnoxious slop, with a mere 600 and 1300 followers respectively) were followed by not just PAC affiliates but also @jasonkwon, OpenAI's chief strategy officer, Chris Lehane's boss, and the person overseeing OpenAI global affairs! Did he somehow find both of these obscure accounts by accident and like their content enough to follow them for fun? Or does he have *some* visibility into the operations of the PAC?
The last sockpuppet I identified, with fewer than 100 followers, was followed by Anna Brockman (@theannabrockman) herself. At times, it posted in ways that seemed to indicate that they were being fed specific non-public information by what I can only imagine was OpenAI global affairs:
If OpenAI global affairs is secretly involved with this PAC, it wouldn't be that surprising -- their head, Chris Lehane, has been publicly reported to have been involved in setting it up. He was also was the mastermind of the Fairshake crypto super PAC that it was based on. Multiple apparent operatives for the new PAC seem to be Lehane's past allies.
What would be surprising is OpenAI lying about this in press releases, to their employees and to the public. I'm not saying they are but I do think they need to answer some hard questions about how they came across these sockpuppet accounts, how the PACs learned about the internal politics of their child safety coalition, etc.
And whether or not they previously knew about it, they do now. Greg Brockman (@gdb), OpenAI's president, has committed $50 million for the PAC but only paid out $25. If he was really opposed to astroturfing like this, it'd be easy for him to pull out and not provide the other half, or make it conditional on them ceasing these activities.
If he doesn't do that, what does it say about what OpenAI truly does and does not endorse?