I’ve heard more unrealistic things this week. I can believe this.
Sam Altman advocates for raping society so it’s only natural he’d be a rapist.
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
420 readers
2 users here now
Share tech news or talk about events in the technology field.
This community is an attempt to spread communities out more from lemmy.world and lemmy.ml, so its less centralized and using the advantages of the fediverse.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean everything about what he says and how he talks shows to me that he is mentally ill. His brain cant feel empathy. Thats why he likes AI and robots.
Of course she's mentally ill. She survived rape by her brother. The family is vile scum for using that argument to silence her.
Yeah. Its really hard to not hate this kind of people. Can you even imagine growing up in the Altman household? I guess thats the thing with rich families. The public ones are always horrible people. The only exception seems to Warren Buffet.
Buffet’s business screws over low income housing and has funded companies like Dow Chemical buying up its competitors to become monopolies that ruin the world for us all.
Doesn't seem unlikely. But how would she know? People don't have real memories from when they were three.
So because you think she can’t remember being raped as a child, you’re dismissing the whole thing? What age are you accepting rape-memories from? Because the rape allegedly continued well into her teens. I think she’s allowed to remember that.
Strawman much?
Around 5.
How is this a strawman argument?
Because I'm not dismissing the whole thing. That notion is being conjured and argued against (a strawman argument). I specifically said he should be investigated and prosecuted. It's the pre-5yo part that weakens the case and should be dropped, and we shouldn't pussyfoot around that if we want a solid case (a judicial one and in the court of public opinion).
I agree with your reasoning. Personally I would describe it as being a weak case rather than a strawman which usually involves misrepresentation.
The strawman is the person I replied to arguing against dismissing the entire case based on the claim of three-year-olds having useful memories. And rudely, I might add. I never said that the entire case should be dismissed. They made that up. That was the strawman.
Article says he started when she was 3 and continued until she became a teenager. Its typical of these predators to go for very young girls and stop around teenage years.
Pretty sure you wont forget something like that even if you are just 3,4,5 years old.
These people are all epstein island types.
I have no idea if it happened or not, but one does not have reliable memories before 5. It's just a human thing. Sometimes people have a vague image but they can't place it in time, and it's usually a reconstructed memory based on a story or a photo.
Basing an accusation like this on a 3-yo's memory is dicey. It actually weakens the accusation imo. That it continued and she clearly remembers it later is very different and he should be investigated thoroughly.
It doesnt matter, she was raped between 3 and 13. Are you going to say that this is something a human being forget?
It doesn't matter because if she was raped she was raped and he should face the consequences. But yes. At 3 you don't remember stuff. She would have forgotten that. No one has real memories from that age.
This is not true.
Look, just because you were born too stupid to remember stuff from when you were young, let alone read actual research papers, doesn't mean the rest of us are.
You are trying to have a sensible discussion about early memories in a conversation about alleged rape.
Save the argument for another opportunity because it comes across as you being defensive about Altman.
It only comes across that way for idiots that don't read. It's actually important, because a case against Altman has to be very strong. If everyone refuses to talk about the flaky part of the accusation because of feelings, then the whole case is likely to fail when it hits any kind of judicial or media pushback.
Misunderstandings at a broad scale are the fault of the communicator, not the receiver.
In the case where people respond without reading based on a kneejerk reaction to a couple of key words, I'd say it is the fault of the reader. Communication takes two parties.
Still false.
Seeing as i have clear memories of when i was two, I'm gonna need some big ol sources on your claims.
Clear as in just like a picture you've seen? Or a story you've been told many times?
Like, an actual memory that I remember happening to me.
So, no source besides your ass.
Such surprise.
3 yr olds memory?
Fixated much?
What about when she was 4?
5?
6?
7?
8?
9?
10, 11, 12, 13?
You stupid fuck. Pick your battles.
You're the ignorant one here and you need to check your knee-jerk reaction and actually try reading before you respond. I indicated that using a 3 or 4 year old's memory is dicey, but that she was clearly raped when older and reliably remembers that, and so he should be investigated/prosecuted. But it damages the case against him using unnecessarily flakey memories.
False.
I do, in fact I vividly remember my third birthday. I also vividly remember the CSA I went through, because distressing memories tend to stick.
I attended preschool at 4. I recall distinctive memories of that experience.
My parents got divorced the same week I turned 5. We moved...
I recall the house I grew up in. The playset. The sand box. The dogs. The neighbors. The neighborhood. The exact address. The phone number. Riding my bike around, parts of the town I grew up in(we moved out of that town and indeed never lived there since). Even climbing trees. Friends. Getting blue ribbons in track. I was a great sprinter. All from before I was 5.
The dog wrapped itself around the tree and died right after my 4th birthday, like in July or August.
I don't recall my 3rd birthday party, though. But I recall my 4th. I recall my babysitter. Haha, my dad even had me golfing. However, I do have some very scant memories from before preschool when I would have been three.
Like running into a table. Still got a scar from that one.
Ok. I believe you, you've made your case. I stand ashamed.
Change the name of the company to Sister Molester AI
So Aaron Schwartz was right not to trust Sam.
Also, isn't this old news? His sister filed a lawsuit last year against him.
There was an update on the case:
In a Wednesday night filing in St. Louis federal court, Sam Altman said Missouri's child sexual abuse statute, opens new tab does not authorize punitive damages for Annie Altman's claims, and instead limits her to "damages for injury or illness" caused by childhood sexual abuse.
Looks like he will get away with it. Surprise surprise. I mean sure, I cant know for sure if this guy did it. But judging by his personality, I think he is exactly the kind of guy who would.
But judging by his personality
Which red flags in particular?
Constant pathological lying stands out for me.
Being an untrustworthy huxter just makes him an unreliable witness.
Lust for power is a better indicator. Does he have a history or trying to control people?
He lies about shit that doesn’t matter too though. He really can’t help it and it’s a definite red flag.
Guess his name stands for Sister's Abuser and Molester, then