There are so many pro-Sam posts from well established and even noteworthy accounts. What would be the point of astroturfing a majority opinion?

As long as we’re throwing around evidence-free accusations of bad faith, the astroturfing claims sure look like the age-old tactic of claiming anyone who disagrees must be a shill.

Have you actually read the sister's accusations? They read like the rantings of a paranoid schizophrenic. One or two things, I could believe, but the sheer volume of ridiculously extreme accusations is impossible to believe.

Her core accusation is that Sam would always read her bedtime stories (he was almost a decade older) while laying in bed with her, and that sometimes while they were in bed he would cuddle her inappropriately. And that at some point she started asking him not to get in the bed and he ignored her “no” and kept up the nightly ritual.

This seems well within the realm of possibility. She probably does have mental health issues (maybe paranoid schizophrenia), but that could be an effect of the childhood sexual trauma. I had a 40-something-year-old aunt who committed suicide due to being raped as a child. :( Early trauma like that can fuck you up in ways that make you permanently unstable.

Getting abused will mess you up in all sorts of ways.

And in any case, someone as rich as Sam Altman letting a close relative live in poverty like that is by itself a pretty damning inditement of his character.

Would you feel better had he locked her up in premier upclass mental institution?

You don’t see any other possibilities? Not, say, paying her rent (or, realistically, buying a house with his spare change and letting her live there) or chipping in for therapy? His net worth is estimated to be in the half billion range so he’d never even notice the cost.

I'm not prepared to assess people's personal business, and I believe it's inappropriate for us to discuss their relationship as none of us are privy to their personal history, who paid for what, who approached who or approached not, and so on.

This thread only exists because you did feel it was appropriate to comment. My point was simply that you assumed one of the worst options rather than something more charitable.

Google says the guy's worth $500M. A mere 1% of that in a trust could ensure that none of his siblings would have to live in poverty ever again. In absolute numbers that's a lot, but in relative terms I've given away much larger percentages of my net worth to relatives, including ones more distant than siblings, I'd do it again, and I'd think less of anybody who wouldn't do the same.