The allegations from his sister aside (not discrediting them, Iām just not well informed on that atm), itās been really strange seeing so many comments cheering for Sam Altman and dunking on the openAI board (handpicked by Altman himself btw) for this whole farce. We have no info on whatās happening inside, just 3rd party hearsay and speculation.
Not only that, the guy who allegedly led Altmanās ousting, Ilya Sutskever, signed the employee resignation letter asking to reinstate Altman as CEO.
OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, who reportedly led the push to remove Altman, noted on X (formerly Twitter) that he had some regrets about the weekend of chaos inside OpenAI. āI deeply regret my participation in the boardās actions. I never intended to harm OpenAI,ā said Sutskever. āI love everything weāve built together and I will do everything I can to reunite the company.ā
And somehow Microsoft ends up the biggest winner out of this entire situation. I donāt consider myself conspiracy mindedā¦but what the hell is going on here?
itās been really strange seeing so many comments cheering for Sam Altman
It's the same with Elon's cult. People probably really believe that Sam is a genius and the one who made ChatGPT (just like Elon's fanboys really believe that he's involved with Tesla's engineering), so they see him, alongside Elon, as a symbol of meritocracy and they get angry at the board for ousting someone just because they're "afraid" of a "genius".
I was certainly a fan of early Elon. A serious push to address one of the causes of climate change, opening up some patents to allow other companies build charging networks, a disruptive can-do attitude that spurred Old Automobile to actually start innovating in response.
There were doubts, but I think the turning point for me was when he attacked the divers working to get the Thai kids out of the cave, just because they thought his submarine ideas sucked.
Heād been doubling down on being an arsehole increasingly since then. I absolutely would have considered buying a Tesla in the old days, now? Absolutely not.
They innovated first. GM and BMW and so on put out electric cars in the 90's they just didn't market them well and the battery tech wasn't as good then meaning range was limited. Not to mention the lack of infrastructure for charging which I will admit that Tesla (not Elon) did push for and develop.
The Roadster was an ice breaker vehicle and I will fully admit that. Musk was involved but he wasn't the one who made those fears feats of battery engineering possible. He really does take credit for a lot of stuff just because he happened to be in the vicinity. I can understand being a Tesla fan. I can't really understand being an Elon Musk fan.
Yeah the Twitter nonsense has been such an absolute shitshow that itās easy to forget he had in fact turned for the worse prior to it. I didnāt flag it at the time, consciously, but The Boring Company was another early signal. Rich guy is stuck in traffic, says: āscrew this Iām digging tunnels, bitches!ā And then they made and sold branded flamethrowers to raise seed moneyā¦? I mean WTF kind of college dorm antics are these?
He used to be so much more grounded, back in the days of talking about our carbon emissions as the dumbest experiment of all time, and how he started SpaceX to make our species interplanetary and better able to survive major disasters. I was all for that Elon. Then he had a kid with a musician and mashed his ass cheek into a keyboard to come up with a name. I think heās deeply personally broken. I donāt know what hopes he had for his marriage and family or how badly that situation is fucked for him post-divorce but it seems like it could be pretty bad and fueling a lot of pain and malice not to mention likely substance abuse.
This is what I was thinking, my feed is now full of this guy. I knew him from Y combinator videos, smart guy and everything, but now terminally online stans will put him on their pedestal and simp for his AI genius - until of course all the shit heās done reaches critical recognition, and the general sentiment will turn on him. Almost like we shouldnāt celebrate billionaire tech bros.
I doubt over 2/3 (around 600) of the employees under Musk would sign a letter demanding that the board resign over their firing of Musk, though. Seems most of the employees actually liked Altman.
When you point out that figure, it's also important to provide more context and take into account the fact that Satya Nadella promised to hire every single OpenAI employee and not just Sam Altman, and the high likelihood that the board will not resign. It's not hard to imagine that for many, going to Microsoft and working in a for-profit environment with potentially higher bonuses (as they'd be more encouraged to seek much higher profits than under OpenAI) is a significant career upgrade (good for them, but the point here is to not let the headlines make you think that there's some warm & fuzzy "we love Sam" moment happening).
The OpenAI salaries are pretty low (https://archive.ph/jPbYR ) compared to what Microsoft offers (https://archive.ph/nonSV ), and as I said all of that doesn't include the potential bonuses that would result from those teams aggressively pursuing profit at Microsoft.
Agreed. I do not know Sam, but I do know smart people who push the boundary of tech and they are all heads down deep into whatever and have little time for talk. Talk is cheap.
Who though? Any examples?
You can check many of the Sam dick riding contests in the comments in any Sam Altman related thread and how most are advancing the classic "she's just a gold digger who suddenly remembers he raped her only after he got rich" or "she looks unhinged, story likely made up" theses that are usually used to protect rapists and discredit rape victims, while trying to bury the rape story with massive downvotes every single time.
I have yet to see any of those in any thread in the last few days. Virtually all have been either negative or neutral to Altman.
Meh, it's kind of a perverse dream that all engineers have to go toe to toe with the suits and win. Like an ex admitting that you've been right the whole time and begging you to come back but you are already fucking three of her smoking hot physicist friends.
Mark my words, this was a hostile poaching operation by Microsoft. Like 65% convinced this was the case. We won't know until 10 years have passed and some dumb emails end up in discovery on some unrelated lawsuit.
Sam wants to push for more & quicker profit with MS and VC backing, but board resists, constant conflicts
Sam aligns with MS, hatch a plan on how to gut OpenAI for its know-how, ppl, and tech, leaving the non-profit part bleeding out in the gutter
Sam & MS set a trap: Sam crosses some red lines, maybe taking commercial decisions without board approval. Potentially there was also some whispering in key ears (e.g, Ilya) by seemingly helpful advisors/VCs to push & pull at the same time on both sides
Board has enough after Sam doesnāt back down, fires him & other co-founder guy
MS and VCs go full attack to discredit board. After some info gathering, they realize they have been utterly fucked
Some chaos, quick decision of appointing/replacing ppl, trying to manage the fire, even talking to Sam (btw this might have been a fallback option for MS, that the board reinstates him with more control and guardrails, weakening the power of the non-profit)
Sam joins MS, masks are off
Employees on the sinking ship revolt, even Ilya realizes he was manipulated/fucked
OpenAI dead, key ppl join MS, tech and rest of the company bought for scraps. Non-profit part dead. Capitalist victory
Source: subjective interpretation/deduction based on the available info and my experience working as a management consultant for 10 years (dealing with lot of exec politics, though nothing this serious)
Wow, thatās exactly my thoughts. Thanks for posting and taking the time.
But then why wouldn't the board say exactly why Altman was removed?
"Least said, soonest mended," as the saying goes: if you want the cleanest break possible, say as little as possible. It's probably also why the board fired him via a virtual meeting after close of business on a Friday.
By stark contrast, both Altman and Brockman were on Twitter almost immediately thereafter, joined shortly by armies of supporters, making absolutely sure that everything happening over the weekend was as public as possible, almost play by play, and was also openly joined in the constant public commentary by the CEO of Microsoft, who became Altman's employer less than 48 hours later.
Note that I'm not saying it's wrong. But in regard to point #3 made above by @slaacaa@lemmy.world it all seems almost planned, especially when you throw in this tidbit from The Guardian:
Sam Altman, the recently sacked boss of OpenAI, the company behind the ChatGPT bot, was telling investors he planned to launch a new company before his shock departure, it was claimed.
No other info, but IF it's true AND Altman was openly talking about planning a competitive service, then it does lend credence to the thought that Altman wanted to go, and to leave in such a way that he got to take whoever he wanted with him, because that is the kind of shit that gets you fired from your own board.
TL;DR: still donāt know anything. No one seems interested in saying wtf theyāre doing.
Gary marcus is the last person I would consider for a statement on the topic.
No offense intended, but Gary marcus is a hack and a joke. He is a very small step above the yud, and neither will contribute to the safety or development of this technology in any way.
Don't know him, what did he do?
marcus is a well known figure for being heavily critical of AI while also being comedically uninformed. much like the yud
i would like to have greater consideration for their opinions, but i find it difficult due to the often unfounded nature of their speculation. for marcus personally, i've seen him make arguments woefully out of touch with current information. this is why i describe him as being comedically uninformed.
wish the best for the guy, although i disagree with them both to the degree i find their reasoning childish and dangerous. the yud moreso.
and to the person assuming "yud" being racist for no reason, please get some help. he is an individual. i'm sure his harry potter fanfics are quality, and i mean no ill to the gentleman other than disagreeing strongly with his opinions on AI.
what in particular shows that Gary Marcus is uniformed? I dislike him because he's dogmatic and petty but I haven't seen a specific thing he's been wrong about, but I'd love examples.
hard to remember which videos specifically, because it was a comparison to things that were known when the video released. he's been around a good while. listening to marcus often leaves me confused and baffled.
not really in the mood to marathon marcus videos for examples, so feel free to disregard my opinions. but i'm definitely not alone in finding humour in the fact
I remember Yudowski being a thing like a decade ago, and people were making fun of his "AI" research even then. It's scary to realize that not only did some people take him seriously, but those people are at the helm of AI companies and making decisions affecting tens of billions of investment capital. I think there was a quote by Kurt Vonnegut that "true horror is waking up one morning and realizing your high school class is running the country".
For the other poster lower down, I'd almost successfully forgotten about his Harry Potter fanfiction, people kept praising it so I actually read through a bit of it, it's painful reading. He also wrote a Superman fanfiction and that's even worse. I think they both say a lot about his internal mental state and his perception of other people though.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
On Friday, OpenAIās board shocked investors and employees alike by firing CEO Sam Altman.
Marcus wrote about the situation on his Substack, sharing an analysis written by Fortuneās Jeremy Kahn earlier in the day.
In OpenAIās unusual structure, a board āwith no financial interest was supposed to look out for humanity,ā Marcus wrote.
When faced with the potential financial repercussions of Altmanās removal, āthe nominally subordinate for-profit (both employees and investors) quickly set to work to push out the board and to undo its decisions,ā Marcus wrote.
Altman had told investors that if he did return to OpenAI, he wanted a new board and governance structure, according to the Wall Street Journal.
āThe tail thus appears to have wagged the dogāpotentially imperiling the original mission, if there was any substance at all to the Boardās concerns,ā wrote Marcus.
The original article contains 501 words, the summary contains 138 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Wait so who are the baddies again?
Everyone
Probably shouldn't rehire someone you probably fired over sexually assaulting his sister...
Youāve been downvoted, but the posts from his sister definitely donāt look great, and I wouldnāt be surprised if that was why the board kicked him out.
I'm getting downvoted by embrassed billionaires š
You're getting downvoted for slinging homophobic slurs and insults at people who are questioning your unproven allegations.
There is a post on lesswrong which compiles the accusations made by the sister. Having worked with many incest victims, family scapegoats and Cinderellas I'll say the story is familiar to what I've heard before and therefore credible.
Is it usual that all the family and even therapists side against alleged victim? I think it's not impossible if the person is so traumatized and troubled to the point that the family rejects her but I struggle to believe that is the usual case.
Yes it is unfortunately common. The family members align in their identification of the scapegoat and their cohesion influences the involved therapists who do not realize the larger picture. The victims are themselves both traumatized and also inculcated family members so it is fairly common that the scapegoats do not realize how fucked up things are until they're older. Incest families are often highly invested in a family ideal that both hides the ugliness and also enables it to flourish (because our golden boy would never do anything like that!). When the scapegoat finally figures it out and tries to tell the truth they are shut down by the defenders of the family ideal. It is easier to shun the truth teller than to accept that the family system is rotten and work to reform it. Also those who are privileged within the family frequently see nothing to gain by admitting wrongdoing and so don't. It is as it is with any sort of privilege at the societal level. Those who have it tend not to see it and then resist giving it up even when the weight of evidence that harm is being done is large.
Is it usual that all the family and even therapists side against alleged victim?
On the family conspiring against a single member part, you might want to look up Harrison Post or watch the "Britney vs Spears" documentary (though that's a bit different and doesn't have to do with rape, Britney was the rich person and her family conspired against her to take over her wealth, had a psychiatrist, James Spar, fabricate a report against her that subsequently just miraculously disappeared from the court files and even picked a lawyer for her who would side with them).
Going back to this story, the "shht, let's not ruin the future of our child prodigy, so even if Sam did something bad to you you will keep your mouth shut" is not that rare among families. Conspiracies by families to cover up rape done by one of them do happen:
Another very important point that makes Annie Altman's story highly believable is that since 2020 she's been resorting to sex work (and also begged on Instagram one day) just to survive, while Sam has a net worth of over half a billion. As I said in another comment, if one of your siblings needs to do sex work to survive while you have hundreds of millions of $s at your disposal, then no matter whether the accusations are true or not, you're the bad person and there's something fundamentally evil about you. Going back to the sex work part, here's what the statistics say (translated from German: https://www.rheinmaasklinikum.de/Inhalt/Patienten/_doc/Evangelische/Hintergrundinformationen_zur_psychischen_Situation_von_maennlichen_und_weiblichen_Prostituierten.pdf ):
In Hamburg, 98% of sex-workers examined were diagnosed with at least one traumatic event. 83% had already experienced trauma in childhood (family violence 70%, physical abuse 65%, sexual abuse 48%). Trauma experienced during prostitution was found in 83% (physical attack 61%, rape 61%, threat with a weapon 52%). Here, 53% achieved an illness score in the sense of post-traumatic stress disorder. Abuse and dependence on illegal drugs at 74%. Similar alarming findings can be found in international comparative studies.
Intimate partner violence was experienced by 21.2% of sex workers, and 23.4% reported client physical or sexual violence. The majority of sex workers (71.2%) reported childhood (i.e., when age <18 years) physical or sexual abuse.
I think you clearly can show that it's possble but that doesn't mean it's likely the articles suggest it but they don't have any statistics to back it up. there is no equivalence between being poor and conspiring to get someone's money and cutting out someone from their inheritance.
I completely disgree with your view that if you have money you have to help family even if they are radioactive to you. in some cases it's best to take distance. especially if the other person is so troubled that whenever you help it just backfires because they can't stop the drama.
I don't doubt that most sex workers have trauma issues or even childhood issues, the part I'm not finding easy to accept is that it's likely that the family would usually side with the accuser.
Please link that.
It's hilarious that people think this had anything to do with ethics. Money. It's always about money.
The allegations from his sister aside (not discrediting them, Iām just not well informed on that atm), itās been really strange seeing so many comments cheering for Sam Altman and dunking on the openAI board (handpicked by Altman himself btw) for this whole farce. We have no info on whatās happening inside, just 3rd party hearsay and speculation.
Not only that, the guy who allegedly led Altmanās ousting, Ilya Sutskever, signed the employee resignation letter asking to reinstate Altman as CEO.
And somehow Microsoft ends up the biggest winner out of this entire situation. I donāt consider myself conspiracy mindedā¦but what the hell is going on here?
It's the same with Elon's cult. People probably really believe that Sam is a genius and the one who made ChatGPT (just like Elon's fanboys really believe that he's involved with Tesla's engineering), so they see him, alongside Elon, as a symbol of meritocracy and they get angry at the board for ousting someone just because they're "afraid" of a "genius".
I was certainly a fan of early Elon. A serious push to address one of the causes of climate change, opening up some patents to allow other companies build charging networks, a disruptive can-do attitude that spurred Old Automobile to actually start innovating in response.
There were doubts, but I think the turning point for me was when he attacked the divers working to get the Thai kids out of the cave, just because they thought his submarine ideas sucked.
Heād been doubling down on being an arsehole increasingly since then. I absolutely would have considered buying a Tesla in the old days, now? Absolutely not.
They innovated first. GM and BMW and so on put out electric cars in the 90's they just didn't market them well and the battery tech wasn't as good then meaning range was limited. Not to mention the lack of infrastructure for charging which I will admit that Tesla (not Elon) did push for and develop.
The Roadster was an ice breaker vehicle and I will fully admit that. Musk was involved but he wasn't the one who made those
fearsfeats of battery engineering possible. He really does take credit for a lot of stuff just because he happened to be in the vicinity. I can understand being a Tesla fan. I can't really understand being an Elon Musk fan.Yeah the Twitter nonsense has been such an absolute shitshow that itās easy to forget he had in fact turned for the worse prior to it. I didnāt flag it at the time, consciously, but The Boring Company was another early signal. Rich guy is stuck in traffic, says: āscrew this Iām digging tunnels, bitches!ā And then they made and sold branded flamethrowers to raise seed moneyā¦? I mean WTF kind of college dorm antics are these?
He used to be so much more grounded, back in the days of talking about our carbon emissions as the dumbest experiment of all time, and how he started SpaceX to make our species interplanetary and better able to survive major disasters. I was all for that Elon. Then he had a kid with a musician and mashed his ass cheek into a keyboard to come up with a name. I think heās deeply personally broken. I donāt know what hopes he had for his marriage and family or how badly that situation is fucked for him post-divorce but it seems like it could be pretty bad and fueling a lot of pain and malice not to mention likely substance abuse.
This is what I was thinking, my feed is now full of this guy. I knew him from Y combinator videos, smart guy and everything, but now terminally online stans will put him on their pedestal and simp for his AI genius - until of course all the shit heās done reaches critical recognition, and the general sentiment will turn on him. Almost like we shouldnāt celebrate billionaire tech bros.
I doubt over 2/3 (around 600) of the employees under Musk would sign a letter demanding that the board resign over their firing of Musk, though. Seems most of the employees actually liked Altman.
When you point out that figure, it's also important to provide more context and take into account the fact that Satya Nadella promised to hire every single OpenAI employee and not just Sam Altman, and the high likelihood that the board will not resign. It's not hard to imagine that for many, going to Microsoft and working in a for-profit environment with potentially higher bonuses (as they'd be more encouraged to seek much higher profits than under OpenAI) is a significant career upgrade (good for them, but the point here is to not let the headlines make you think that there's some warm & fuzzy "we love Sam" moment happening).
The OpenAI salaries are pretty low (https://archive.ph/jPbYR ) compared to what Microsoft offers (https://archive.ph/nonSV ), and as I said all of that doesn't include the potential bonuses that would result from those teams aggressively pursuing profit at Microsoft.
Agreed. I do not know Sam, but I do know smart people who push the boundary of tech and they are all heads down deep into whatever and have little time for talk. Talk is cheap.
Who though? Any examples?
You can check many of the Sam dick riding contests in the comments in any Sam Altman related thread and how most are advancing the classic "she's just a gold digger who suddenly remembers he raped her only after he got rich" or "she looks unhinged, story likely made up" theses that are usually used to protect rapists and discredit rape victims, while trying to bury the rape story with massive downvotes every single time.
I have yet to see any of those in any thread in the last few days. Virtually all have been either negative or neutral to Altman.
Meh, it's kind of a perverse dream that all engineers have to go toe to toe with the suits and win. Like an ex admitting that you've been right the whole time and begging you to come back but you are already fucking three of her smoking hot physicist friends.
Mark my words, this was a hostile poaching operation by Microsoft. Like 65% convinced this was the case. We won't know until 10 years have passed and some dumb emails end up in discovery on some unrelated lawsuit.
Source: subjective interpretation/deduction based on the available info and my experience working as a management consultant for 10 years (dealing with lot of exec politics, though nothing this serious)
Wow, thatās exactly my thoughts. Thanks for posting and taking the time.
But then why wouldn't the board say exactly why Altman was removed?
"Least said, soonest mended," as the saying goes: if you want the cleanest break possible, say as little as possible. It's probably also why the board fired him via a virtual meeting after close of business on a Friday.
By stark contrast, both Altman and Brockman were on Twitter almost immediately thereafter, joined shortly by armies of supporters, making absolutely sure that everything happening over the weekend was as public as possible, almost play by play, and was also openly joined in the constant public commentary by the CEO of Microsoft, who became Altman's employer less than 48 hours later.
Note that I'm not saying it's wrong. But in regard to point #3 made above by @slaacaa@lemmy.world it all seems almost planned, especially when you throw in this tidbit from The Guardian:
Sam Altman āwas working on new ventureā before sacking from OpenAI
No other info, but IF it's true AND Altman was openly talking about planning a competitive service, then it does lend credence to the thought that Altman wanted to go, and to leave in such a way that he got to take whoever he wanted with him, because that is the kind of shit that gets you fired from your own board.
TL;DR: still donāt know anything. No one seems interested in saying wtf theyāre doing.
CEO/employees want money, non-profit board wants caution.
Gary marcus is the last person I would consider for a statement on the topic.
No offense intended, but Gary marcus is a hack and a joke. He is a very small step above the yud, and neither will contribute to the safety or development of this technology in any way.
Don't know him, what did he do?
marcus is a well known figure for being heavily critical of AI while also being comedically uninformed. much like the yud
i would like to have greater consideration for their opinions, but i find it difficult due to the often unfounded nature of their speculation. for marcus personally, i've seen him make arguments woefully out of touch with current information. this is why i describe him as being comedically uninformed.
wish the best for the guy, although i disagree with them both to the degree i find their reasoning childish and dangerous. the yud moreso.
and to the person assuming "yud" being racist for no reason, please get some help. he is an individual. i'm sure his harry potter fanfics are quality, and i mean no ill to the gentleman other than disagreeing strongly with his opinions on AI.
what in particular shows that Gary Marcus is uniformed? I dislike him because he's dogmatic and petty but I haven't seen a specific thing he's been wrong about, but I'd love examples.
hard to remember which videos specifically, because it was a comparison to things that were known when the video released. he's been around a good while. listening to marcus often leaves me confused and baffled. not really in the mood to marathon marcus videos for examples, so feel free to disregard my opinions. but i'm definitely not alone in finding humour in the fact
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
definitely not alone in finding humour in the fact
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I remember Yudowski being a thing like a decade ago, and people were making fun of his "AI" research even then. It's scary to realize that not only did some people take him seriously, but those people are at the helm of AI companies and making decisions affecting tens of billions of investment capital. I think there was a quote by Kurt Vonnegut that "true horror is waking up one morning and realizing your high school class is running the country".
For the other poster lower down, I'd almost successfully forgotten about his Harry Potter fanfiction, people kept praising it so I actually read through a bit of it, it's painful reading. He also wrote a Superman fanfiction and that's even worse. I think they both say a lot about his internal mental state and his perception of other people though.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
On Friday, OpenAIās board shocked investors and employees alike by firing CEO Sam Altman.
Marcus wrote about the situation on his Substack, sharing an analysis written by Fortuneās Jeremy Kahn earlier in the day.
In OpenAIās unusual structure, a board āwith no financial interest was supposed to look out for humanity,ā Marcus wrote.
When faced with the potential financial repercussions of Altmanās removal, āthe nominally subordinate for-profit (both employees and investors) quickly set to work to push out the board and to undo its decisions,ā Marcus wrote.
Altman had told investors that if he did return to OpenAI, he wanted a new board and governance structure, according to the Wall Street Journal.
āThe tail thus appears to have wagged the dogāpotentially imperiling the original mission, if there was any substance at all to the Boardās concerns,ā wrote Marcus.
The original article contains 501 words, the summary contains 138 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Wait so who are the baddies again?
Everyone
Probably shouldn't rehire someone you probably fired over sexually assaulting his sister...
Youāve been downvoted, but the posts from his sister definitely donāt look great, and I wouldnāt be surprised if that was why the board kicked him out.
I'm getting downvoted by embrassed billionaires š
You're getting downvoted for slinging homophobic slurs and insults at people who are questioning your unproven allegations.
There is a post on lesswrong which compiles the accusations made by the sister. Having worked with many incest victims, family scapegoats and Cinderellas I'll say the story is familiar to what I've heard before and therefore credible.
Linking that post: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QDczBduZorG4dxZiW/sam-altman-s-sister-annie-altman-claims-sam-has-severely
Is it usual that all the family and even therapists side against alleged victim? I think it's not impossible if the person is so traumatized and troubled to the point that the family rejects her but I struggle to believe that is the usual case.
Yes it is unfortunately common. The family members align in their identification of the scapegoat and their cohesion influences the involved therapists who do not realize the larger picture. The victims are themselves both traumatized and also inculcated family members so it is fairly common that the scapegoats do not realize how fucked up things are until they're older. Incest families are often highly invested in a family ideal that both hides the ugliness and also enables it to flourish (because our golden boy would never do anything like that!). When the scapegoat finally figures it out and tries to tell the truth they are shut down by the defenders of the family ideal. It is easier to shun the truth teller than to accept that the family system is rotten and work to reform it. Also those who are privileged within the family frequently see nothing to gain by admitting wrongdoing and so don't. It is as it is with any sort of privilege at the societal level. Those who have it tend not to see it and then resist giving it up even when the weight of evidence that harm is being done is large.
On the family conspiring against a single member part, you might want to look up Harrison Post or watch the "Britney vs Spears" documentary (though that's a bit different and doesn't have to do with rape, Britney was the rich person and her family conspired against her to take over her wealth, had a psychiatrist, James Spar, fabricate a report against her that subsequently just miraculously disappeared from the court files and even picked a lawyer for her who would side with them).
Going back to this story, the "shht, let's not ruin the future of our child prodigy, so even if Sam did something bad to you you will keep your mouth shut" is not that rare among families. Conspiracies by families to cover up rape done by one of them do happen:
Another very important point that makes Annie Altman's story highly believable is that since 2020 she's been resorting to sex work (and also begged on Instagram one day) just to survive, while Sam has a net worth of over half a billion. As I said in another comment, if one of your siblings needs to do sex work to survive while you have hundreds of millions of $s at your disposal, then no matter whether the accusations are true or not, you're the bad person and there's something fundamentally evil about you. Going back to the sex work part, here's what the statistics say (translated from German: https://www.rheinmaasklinikum.de/Inhalt/Patienten/_doc/Evangelische/Hintergrundinformationen_zur_psychischen_Situation_von_maennlichen_und_weiblichen_Prostituierten.pdf ):
And also (https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-017-0491-y ):
I think you clearly can show that it's possble but that doesn't mean it's likely the articles suggest it but they don't have any statistics to back it up. there is no equivalence between being poor and conspiring to get someone's money and cutting out someone from their inheritance.
I completely disgree with your view that if you have money you have to help family even if they are radioactive to you. in some cases it's best to take distance. especially if the other person is so troubled that whenever you help it just backfires because they can't stop the drama.
I don't doubt that most sex workers have trauma issues or even childhood issues, the part I'm not finding easy to accept is that it's likely that the family would usually side with the accuser.
Please link that.
It's hilarious that people think this had anything to do with ethics. Money. It's always about money.