The company disputes the claim that such an idea was taken seriously, but ex-employees say it was real. Keep up to date with the most important stories and the best deals, as picked by the PC Gamer team. Unlock instant access to exclusive member features. Get full access to premium articles, exclusive features and a growing list of member rewards. The New Yorker has published an enormous feature about OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and his disputed trustworthiness, citing more than one person who has accused the generative AI mogul of habitual dishonesty. The 16,000 word article (available online or in The New Yorker's latest print edition) adds new context to a number of widely-reported episodes from Altman's career, including his 2023 ousting from OpenAI and return, his beef with Elon Musk, and the disintegration of his persona as a humanity-first AI safety advocate, which strained credulity from the start and is now especially comical in juxtaposition with his current role as a profit-seeking Trump ally who recently signed a deal with the US Department of War. A particularly unflattering portion of the article discusses a defunct plan to pit world leaders against each other by positioning OpenAI as a kind of nuclear weapon that they'd better compete to invest in, lest they be left behind. OpenAI denies that characterization of the discussions, calling it "ridiculous," but former OpenAI policy advisers say otherwise. One of those former advisers is OpenAI critic Page Hedley, who told The New Yorker that the idea came from OpenAI president and major Trump donor Greg Brockman. After Hedley presented ways to avoid a global AI arms race, Brockman reportedly proposed the opposite. In The New Yorker's words, the proposal was that "OpenAI could enrich itself by playing world powers—including China and Russia—against one another, perhaps by starting a bidding war among them."