This is really good journalism. There are a ton of interesting details in here that haven't been reported elsewhere, and it has all of the hallmarks of being well researched and sourced.
The first clue is this: "In conversations between The Atlantic and 10 current and former employees at OpenAI..."
When you're reporting something like this, especially when using anonymous sources (not anonymous to you, but sources that have good reasons not to want their names published), you can't just trust what someone tells you - they may have their own motives for presenting things in a certain way, or they may just be straight up lying.
So... you confirm what they are saying with other sources. That's why "10 current and former employees" is mentioned explicitly in the article.
Being published in the Atlantic helps too, because that's a publication with strong editorial integrity and a great track record.
That was exactly my reaction. I’ve been following the news and rumors and speculation closely since Altman’s firing, and this is by far the most substantive account I have read. Kudos to the authors and to The Atlantic for getting it out so quickly.
I think it's because one of the authors is writing a book about OpenAI. They were interviewing people before and already had a lot of contacts and context.
> To truly understand the events of the past 48 hours—the shocking, sudden ousting of OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, arguably the figurehead of the generative-AI revolution, followed by reports that the company is now in talks to bring him back—one must understand that OpenAI is not a technology company. At least, not like other epochal companies of the internet age, such as Meta, Google, and Microsoft.
The key piece here is "At least, not like other epochal companies of the internet age, such as Meta, Google, and Microsoft." - which then gets into the weird structure of OpenAI as a non-profit, which is indeed crucial to understanding what has happened over the weekend.
This is good writing. The claim that "OpenAI is not a technology company" in the opening paragraph of the story instantly grabs your attention and makes you ask why they would say that... a question which they then answer in the next few sentences.
"Zealous doomers" seems fair in the context of the vague and melodramatic claims they're pushing. But it makes sense because they're describing the threat of something that doesn't exist and may never exist. What is bad is that they are trying to claim that the threat is real and serious on that basis.
Personally, I feel like the risks of future AI developments are real, but none of the stuff I've seen OpenAI do so far has made ChatGPT actually feel "safer" (in a sense of e.g., preventing unhealthy parasocial relationships with the system, actually being helpful when it comes to ethical conflicts, etc), just more stuck-up and excessively moralizing in a way that feels 100% tuned for bland corporate PR bot usage.
> "zealous doomers" is that how people cautious of the potential power of AI are now being labeled?
I think that "zealous doomers" refers to people who are afraid that this technology may result in some sort of Skynet situation, not those who are nervous about more realistic risks.
The first clue is this: "In conversations between The Atlantic and 10 current and former employees at OpenAI..."
When you're reporting something like this, especially when using anonymous sources (not anonymous to you, but sources that have good reasons not to want their names published), you can't just trust what someone tells you - they may have their own motives for presenting things in a certain way, or they may just be straight up lying.
So... you confirm what they are saying with other sources. That's why "10 current and former employees" is mentioned explicitly in the article.
Being published in the Atlantic helps too, because that's a publication with strong editorial integrity and a great track record.