Altman’s power play: openai faces scrutiny over military ties and trust deficits
The internet’s chilling query – “What are the seven most terrifying words in the English language?” – now echoes in the corridors of OpenAI: ‘Ronan Farrow’s been asking questions about you.’
A board’s doubts, a crisis response – and a pentagon deal
This week, The New Yorker unveils a damning investigation into OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, by investigative journalist Ronan Farrow. The piece dissects the company’s opaque dealings, probing questions about power, accountability, and the potential for unchecked technological influence. It’s not just about ChatGPT; it’s about the burgeoning, and increasingly unsettling, reach of AI across every facet of modern life – from your phone to national defense.
Farrow’s reporting reveals that OpenAI’s board harbored significant reservations regarding Altman’s trustworthiness, surfacing just weeks before his brief ousting in 2023. A “war room” – comprised of crisis communicators and key investors – sprang into action, swiftly reinstating Altman under pressure from Microsoft and, reportedly, a threat of mass defections from a 700-strong team dedicated to developing competing technologies. The speed of that reinstatement, and the subsequent agreement with the Pentagon, is deeply concerning.
A $852 billion empire built on shifting sands
Despite projecting a staggering $14 billion loss in 2026 – a tripling of previous estimates – OpenAI maintains a market valuation of an eye-watering $852 billion. This dizzying ascent underscores the immense commercial momentum driving the company, but simultaneously raises crucial questions about its long-term sustainability and ethical considerations. The looming spectre of job displacement, particularly within white-collar sectors, is a palpable and potentially destabilizing force.
The recent agreement with the US military to deploy OpenAI’s Technology in classified operations – prompted by concerns raised by rival AI firm Anthropic regarding potential surveillance and autonomous weapons – further complicates the narrative. OpenAI’s attempts to portray the deal as prioritizing “guardrails” and aligning with “democracy” ring hollow in the face of documented history. The company’s own staff researchers have voiced serious anxieties about the Technology’s potential to pose a ‘threat to humanity’ - a chilling assessment that demands serious attention. The fact that Altman himself later sought to ‘reframe’ the initial agreement as ‘opportunistic and sloppy’ speaks volumes.
A donor’s paradox
Adding another layer of intrigue, revelations about OpenAI executive Greg Brockman’s $25 million donation to a Trump fundraising vehicle – coupled with his involvement in an AI ‘SuperPAC’ supporting national AI regulations – present a stark contradiction. This investment coincides with a recent executive order from Trump limiting state oversight of AI, favoring a “minimally burdensome national standard.” It’s a pattern, frankly, that’s difficult to ignore. The question isn’t whether these individuals are ‘good people,’ but whether the motivations driving their influence are genuinely aligned with democratic principles.
Beyond ‘guardrails’ – the real stakes
Rutger Bregman, a prominent activist and historian, has launched a “QuitGPT” campaign, urging a worldwide boycott of OpenAI, citing concerns about ‘authoritarianism’ being bankrolled by ChatGPT subscriptions. Meanwhile, the deployment of AI tools like Palantir’s Maven in US military strikes – including the devastating bombing of a girls’ school in Minab – highlights the urgent need for robust oversight and accountability. The rubble of that school serves as a stark reminder that the debate surrounding the delegation of power to tools capable of inflicting lethal force must be confronted head-on. We cannot outsource these critical decisions to algorithms or self-regulated enterprises.
Ultimately, the challenge lies in establishing meaningful social, political, legal, and economic safeguards – not just for Silicon Valley’s latest innovation, but for our collective future. It’s a sobering realization: we must confront our own fallibility, not seek to abdicate responsibility. Let’s not mistake technological advancement for genuine progress.