There's... a lot of other stuff that turns up on Google, including GPT chatbots associated with "Vespers Inc" that claim to help people with online filing, name overlaps with people who had genuine court cases filed against them in California several years ago, a defunct and obviously spammy Vespers Inc LinkedIn AI and Cybersecurity profile, and a Github profile of a "Governmental Forensic Fraud Investigator that shares the online filings' interests in Pirate Stock(s) and er.. other overlaps. Oh, and a LinkedIn profile of a Jacob Vespers, supposedly an Orange County Station Chief involved in "Persona Creation" for the CIA!
But I will say that if it turns out that Sam's latest scheme for world domination has been foiled by him dogfooding his own product, then it's very very funny
I think the linked interpretation is very, very reasonable and it's a big reason why I tried to deemphasize all the "stuff" you've highlighted in my piece.
I think most of us would agree the person in question - if they're real - is exhibiting signs of a mental health crisis.
That said, I wouldn't have written the piece if I felt the aforementioned interpretation was the primary explanation to everything I'm seeing in the disclosures. I proactively tried as I went through the disclosures.
The issue I'm having is - regardless of what this person is able to concoct with ChatGPT or other methods - they shouldn't have been able to insert themselves and their Vespers "creation" into OpenAI Startup Fund I GP LLC's CA filings even if they wanted to.
One could argue they either needed to "hack" into the CA filing to insert themselves as Manager/CEO or someone at OpenAI allowed it happen (knowingly or unknowingly is tbd).
It also doesn't help OpenAI won't explain 1) how it happened, 2) why it took so long to catch it, and 3) why it wasn't reported to regulators once discovered:
"[OpenAI] declined to elaborate on how exactly fabricated documents came to be filed with the state of California."
I recognize this sounds a bit conspiratorial, but there are elements (I didn't cover) to this person's filings involving OAI that looks very thoughtful/intentional and are hard to dismiss as random/coincidental/hallucinated actions of someone that likely needs help.
And OAI's "response" didn't help address the actual issues I'm seeing.
Whilst I guess it's not entirely impossible that someone would become obsessed with OpenAI, GPT, online filing, fraud and espionage after OpenAI had accidentally attributed ownership of its venture capital fund to a shell company registered in his existing multiple aliases on the same day, I think Ockham's razor suggests the story fits better the other way round.
(I'm not sure what the security processes for online filings are, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone sufficiently motivated and ambivalent about it being a felony could provide the necessary fake documentation, social engineering and/or brute force hacking to get their registered business given a notional role in someone else's unrelated business on a nonbinding document, at least until the other business noted and corrected the record. I know GPT "hallucinates" real names, but picking the existing aliases of the sort of person most likely to go down those rabbit holes seems quite the coincidence. And it'd have been odder if OpenAI's response was anything other than a generic spokesperson denial)
I just want to comment that the image of the Santa Ana property looks a lot like the main character’s apt in the movie Momento, adding some umami to the whole vibe.
Using fictitious names on legal documents is a crime, isn't it? So if those names are truly not real people, then isn't it criminal to put them on notarized documents?
It is a crime, although it doesn't seem to be public knowledge who actually did it. The "Jrbiltmore" account is the most likely suspect, but AFAIK that's just speculation at this point.
I feel like this is more interesting than the original post. Though I am not sure what I am supposed to make out of this: is it 1. shady operations using fake identities with their signatures or 2. an early example of OAI trying to use AI for making money through investments? I lean towards the first one. I mean maybe there is an explanation which makes this seem more reasonable. Do people create boards with fake directors and owners for companies?
The Substack was badly written, and it took me a long time to figure out what their point was. And I might be wrong! I got lost in the purple prose.
Regardless of how shady OpenAI's aims may have been, I genuinely think the root cause of this is that someone at OpenAI foolishly used ChatGPT to automate boring tax paperwork. ChatGPT decided "John Q Vesper" or whatever was a statistically plausible name for the CEO, and this dumb mistake wasn't caught by a human because nobody wants to read tax paperwork if they think a magical talking robot is capable of what seems like a routine task. I am assuming OpenAI didn't intend to tell a ridiculous and easily falsifiable lie in its tax filings (especially if that lie contradicted their public explanations about Altman's management of the fund!). OpenAI probably wanted the paperwork to say "Sam Altman."
FWIW the IRS is generally forgiving of good-faith tax errors, but I would suspect "we spent so long lying about our chatbot that we ourselves forgot that it's dumber than a pigeon and doesn't actually understand human language" doesn't count. Considering how many two-bit lawyers got in significant legal trouble for relying on ChatGPT hallucinations, it would be outrageous if OpenAI manages to get off scot-free here.
Fun fact: I consider myself a pretty bad writer and initially started the newsletter to try and get better at it. The results have been mixed on that front so apologies if you got confused by the "purple prose". I'm trying.
Anyway, my point was:
1. The disclosures point to "OpenAI Startup Fund I" being under the control of a fake company and CEO.
2. The fake company and CEO in question looks like the creation of an AI hallucination.
3. If a fake company and CEO were intentionally used by OpenAI, this isn't a minor infraction and there are highly consequential ramifications to consider given Altman's prior "ownership" of the fund, reported concerns it was being used to circumvent OpenAI Board oversight/governance, and participation in the fund was allegedly a means to invest in OpenAI.
Much of the piece is admittedly a helter-skelter collection of disclosures and explanations focused on supporting #1 and I don't really get into my rationale for #3.
Overall, it makes for bad long-form reading, but it did compel BI to do the needed journalistic follow-up work, made OAI acknowledge the filing was "illegitimate", and pushed the story forward.
We now know, according to OpenAI:
1. The company and CEO doesn't exist to their knowledge.
2. The document indicating this fake company and CEO controlled "Fund I" isn't legitimate and completely fabricated.
3. They're not willing to elaborate/explain how or why these "fabricated" entities got filed by them.
It's ugly spaghetti prose, but I'd say the write-up worked as intended.
At the very least, any false disclosures in the governmental filings would be illegal, and the bizarre mixture of overlapping names and addresses for the listed directors (as discussed extensively in the article) suggests some degree of dishonesty.
I too am not an expert on corporate law, but very few governments make it legal to lie on these types of forms.
You're absolutely correct about the info both of your friends shared.
I know because I was a Banjo employee myself (3+ years), before Damien step foot in Utah (during a company party, he told us while casually chatting that he gave his wife a budget of $3m to find a new house - they lived in Vegas at the time).
During my time there, Banjo was building a team in Vegas, NV and Redwood City, CA.
He is a workaholic. This would not be a problem, if he did not identify with Banjo (literally) and expect everyone else to work on his schedule (most weekends included, since he has no life).
If you are a high performer and take pride in your work, be sure that you'll be asked to put your life on hold, work weekends (a lot of weekends), and work toward the "greater good": Saving lives and reducing human suffering - what a joke! I wish I can say that during my tenure there we actually saved lives. But that would be a lie. A lie that everyone I worked with knows too well.
I've read several of his statements that the "life saving" technology was born in Utah.
This is not true. We worked on the algorithms long before, and we did not remove users info for a long time. Only after the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal emerged in 2018, he mandated the engineers to remove all user identifiable information before posting it on our platform.
> He is a workaholic. This would not be a problem, if he did not identify with Banjo (literally) and expect everyone else to work on his schedule (most weekends included, since he has no life).
Yes, this is exactly what I was told.
Strangely, one of my friends was recruited with promises of work/life balance and plenty of vacation time. Then they were asked to work non-stop, weekdays and weekends, as soon as they started.
