Burden of proof: yes (light)
At the time of creation of this question it is widely repeated that Ilya Sutskever was instrumental in the OpenAI coup.
Sutskever, who also co-founded OpenAI and leads its researchers, was instrumental in the ousting of Altman this week, according to multiple sources.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/18/23967199/breaking-openai-board-in-discussions-with-sam-altman-to-return-as-ceo
However, at this time Ilya has joined a petition calling for the Board of Directions to resign and has stated that he regrets his role, implying he was not the actual leader of the coup.
I will choose yes if media sources begin explicitly naming Adam D'Angelo and implying or suggesting that he had a hand in leading the coup or that he influenced Ilya to do so.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ265 | |
| 2 | Ṁ189 | |
| 3 | Ṁ93 | |
| 4 | Ṁ74 | |
| 5 | Ṁ63 |
People are also trading
@Blomfilter or maybe he managed to eek out a draw? Others have flipped and/or agreeded to resign yet here he is clinging to a board seat.
“I will choose yes if media sources begin explicitly naming Adam D'Angelo and implying or suggesting…” - this is a crazy low bar. What if there’s an article that says ‘Adam may have done it, but [maybe/probably] not?’ What if an article says anonymous sources suggest he’s behind it, and the next day confirm that he wasn’t?
The Adam-did-it theory
https://x.com/williamlegate/status/1726715671487156554?s=20
Yishan Wong on Adam (against theory of pettiness):
How does this resolve? What burden of proof will you require?