Power
Platformer

OpenAI vs. the world

By Casey Newton
US-APEC-SUMMIT
ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images

How worried should we be about OpenAI’s leadership?

The company hasn’t been the same since Sam Altman’s return — and its treatment of Scarlett Johansson should concern everyone

Casey Newton

OpenAI hasn't been the same company since Sam Altman returned as its CEO.

It’s a thought that has occurred to me repeatedly over the past week as the company has found mounting reasons to stop, reverse course, and apologize over product and personnel issues. And it’s one that feels increasingly urgent in a world where the company’s technology is poised to serve as the artificial intelligence backbone on both Microsoft and Apple devices. 

On Monday, actress Scarlett Johansson revealed that the OpenAI CEO had been negotiating with her for the better part of a year to lend her voice to ChatGPT. “He told me that he felt that by my voicing the system, I could bridge the gap between tech companies and creatives and help consumers to feel comfortable with the seismic shift concerning humans and AI,” Johansson said in a statement published by NPR’s Bobby Allyn. “He said he felt that my voice would be comforting to people.”

Johansson declined to participate. But when OpenAI unveiled voices for ChatGPT in September, users were struck by the uncanny similarity between the voice it called Sky and Johansson’s. And it should not have been a surprise: Altman has said that Her, in which Johansson voices an AI assistant with whom the film’s protagonist falls in love, is his favorite movie. Last week, after OpenAI showcased an updated version of Sky that takes advantage of its latest models, Altman posted the movie’s title suggestively on X.

“When I heard the released demo, I was shocked, angered and in disbelief that Mr. Altman would pursue a voice that sounded so eerily similar to mine that my closest friends and news outlets could not tell the difference,” Johansson said.

But there is even more to the story, Johansson wrote.

“Two days before the ChatGPT 4.0 demo was released, Mr. Altman contacted my agent, asking me to reconsider,” she wrote. “Before we could connect, the system was out there.”

And so even as Altman attempted to renegotiate with Johansson behind the scenes, he intentionally drew attention to Sky’s similarity to Johansson in Her to his nearly 3 million Twitter followers — and released the product before finishing the negotiations.

In the moment, it looked like a grand success. The OpenAI team’s demonstration of a warmer, more emotional chatbot last week was one of the most impressive tech demos I’ve seen. In the end, I found its aggressive flirting unsettling, and seemingly at odds with Altman’s previous statements to me that the company would not pursue AI tools that doubled as romantic companions. But the demo unquestionably succeeded in captivating the tech world — and stealing thunder from Google on the eve of its annual developer conference.

Behind the scenes, though, Johansson was starting to ask questions. She hired attorneys, “who wrote two letters to Mr. Altman and OpenAI, setting out what they had done and asking them to detail the exact process by which they created the ‘Sky’ voice,” she wrote.

That did the trick: on Sunday night, OpenAI announced it would pull the Sky voice from ChatGPT. It also put up a blog post outlining the casting and recording process for the five voices it eventually selected for ChatGPT, Sky included.

OpenAI has taken pains to frame all of this as a big misunderstanding. CTO Mira Murati told reporters last week that Sky is not intended to sound like Johansson. And earlier on Monday, the company’s model behavior lead, Joanne Jang, told The Verge that “We’ve been in conversations with ScarJo’s team because there seems to be some confusion.”

OpenAI did not respond to my requests for comment today. But Johansson’s statement suggests that in reality, there was never any legitimate confusion about what was going on here. Altman asked to license her voice to realize the fantasy of a real-life Her; she declined; and the company proceeded anyway with a voice as similar to hers as it could get.

“I look forward to resolution in the form of transparency and the passage of appropriate legislation to help ensure that individual rights are protected,” she said.

II.

Johansson is one of the world’s most famous actresses, and she speaks for an entire class of creatives who are now wrestling with the fact that automated systems have begun to erode the value of their work. OpenAI’s decision to usurp her voice for its own purposes will now get wide and justified attention.

At the same time, it’s possible that Johansson’s experience wasn’t even the most important thing that happened at OpenAI in the past week.

Last Tuesday, after all, Ilya Sutskever announced he was leaving the company. Sutskever, a co-founder of the company who is renowned both for his technical ability and his concerns about the potential of AI to do harm, was a leader of the faction that briefly deposed Altman in November. Sutskever reversed his position once it became clear that the vast majority of OpenAi employees were prepared to quit if Altman did not return as CEO. But Sutskever hasn’t worked for the company since.

In an anodyne public statement, Sutskever said only that he now plans to work on “a project that is very personally meaningful to” him.

Why not say more about the circumstances of his departure? Vox reported over the weekend that OpenAI’s nondisclosure agreements forbid criticizing the company for the duration of the former employee’s lifetime; forbids them from acknowledging the existence of the NDA; and forces them to give up all vested equity in the company if they refuse to sign it. (After the story drew wide attention, on Saturday Altman apologized and said the company would remove the provision about clawing back equity for violating the NDA.)

As OpenAI’s chief scientist, Sutskever also led its so-called “superalignment team,” which it formed last July to research ways of ensuring that advanced AI systems act safely and in accordance with human intent. Among other things, the company promised to dedicate 20 percent of its scarce and critical computing power to the project. 

But Altman’s ouster led to wide disparagement of AI safety efforts, which were wrongly identified as the reason his co-workers wanted to fire him. (The actual-if-vague reason was that he was not “consistently candid in his communications,” according to the company’s former board, a charge that seems worth revisiting in light of Johansson’s experience with him.) 

And so it perhaps should not be surprising that, upon his return, safety efforts were deprioritized. The superalignment team has been disbanded after less than a year, with its remaining employees absorbed into other teams. Jan Leike, who led the superalignment team under Sutskever, quit on Friday, saying OpenAI’s “safety culture and processes have taken a backseat to shiny products.”

“I joined because I thought OpenAI would be the best place in the world to do this research,” Leike wrote on X. “However, I have been disagreeing with OpenAI leadership about the company’s core priorities for quite some time, until we finally reached a breaking point.”

In response, Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman issued a long statement that gestured toward building things responsibly without addressing Laike’s criticism.

III.

What to make of all this? 

On one hand, it’s not unusual for a fast-growing startup to go through some tumult as it scales up. On the other, OpenAI was not founded to be a typical fast-growing startup: it was founded to be a nonprofit research lab focused on the safe development of superhuman intelligence.

Since the release of ChatGPT — and much more so since Altman’s return from exile — OpenAI has looked like anything but. It has consistently pushed the boundaries of what AI can do, both from a technical standpoint and from the vantage of what it believes society can handle.

And last week, determined to show up Google on the eve of I/O, the company went through with its demo of a Johansson voice clone, against Johansson’s explicit wishes, because … Altman is a fan? 

For the moment, the only cost to OpenAI from any of this has been a torrent of aggrieved social media posts. On Monday its APIs were at the center of a range of new PCs unveiled by its largest investor, Microsoft; next month they are expected to be announced as part of a big new partnership with Apple. One analysis last week suggested that the company’s mobile app revenue grew 22 percent the day it showcased the not-Johansson voice demo.

For years now, OpenAI told everyone that these were all secondary concerns — that its deeper ambition was something nobler, and more public-spirited. But since Altman’s return, the company has been telling a different story: a story about winning at all costs. 

And why bother with superalignment, when there’s winning to do? 

Why bother getting actresses’ permission, when the right numbers are all still going up?


Casey Newton writes Platformer, a daily guide to understanding social networks and their relationships with the world. This piece was originally published on Platformer.

More Power

See all Power
power

Paramount doesn’t improve its offer for Warner Bros., leaving its fate to a long-shot shareholder appeal

Paramount Skydance on Thursday reaffirmed its $30-per-share offer to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, again stating that it believes the offer to be superior to rival Netflix’s.

In a press release, Paramount said its last amendment to the offer — which included a $40.4 billion personal guarantee from Larry Ellison, the father of Paramount CEO David Ellison — “cured every issue raised by WBD.”

The problem: Warner Bros.’ board on Wednesday unanimously voted to reject that offer, its sixth rejection of a Paramount takeover and second rejection of this specific $30-per-share bid. Warner’s board stated that it believes Paramount’s offer to be inferior to Netflix’s due in part to an “extraordinary amount of debt financing” and lower effective termination fees should the deal not clear the regulatory process.

By not improving the bid, Paramount is effectively leaving the deal in the hands of Warner Bros.’ shareholders, who will have to weigh the bids and the multiple rejections. Event contracts show a moderate boost in Parmount’s odds to end up in control of WBD on Thursday morning, jumping to 31% as of 9:30 a.m. ET, up from 27% at 9:00 a.m. ET.

(Event contracts are offered through Robinhood Derivatives, LLC — probabilities referenced or sourced from KalshiEx LLC or ForecastEx LLC.)

power

Warner Bros. Discovery’s board tells shareholders to turn down Paramount’s “inadequate” hostile bid

Warner Bros. Discovery has told shareholders to reject Paramount’s hostile takeover bid, with the company releasing a statement early Wednesday urging shareholders to take the Netflix offer on the table. WBD’s board of directors said the outcome of the Netflix deal is “extraordinary by any measure.”

Paramount’s offer, in contrast, was described in the letter as “illusory,” providing “inadequate value,” and likely to impose “numerous, significant risks and costs on WBD.” The board said Paramount has “misled WBD shareholders that its proposed transaction has a ‘full backstop’ from the Ellison family,” and the board also outlined that it doesn’t believe there is a “material difference in regulatory risk between the PSKY offer and the Netflix merger.”

WBD shares dipped in the minutes leading up to the market close on Tuesday after news leaked that its management was preparing to encourage shareholders to reject Paramounts bid, and shares of the HBO parent were down at $28.66, off 0.83% from yesterday’s close, as of 7:56 a.m. ET on Wednesday. Netflix was ticking higher, up around 1.7%, and Paramount Skydance was modestly in the red, down 1%.

Several outlets have reported that Jared Kushners firm would back out of the group that had been assembled to help finance the Paramount bid. Confirming this withdrawal, a spokesperson for the firm helmed by the president’s son-in-law told NBC News that “the dynamics ​of the investment have changed significantly ​since we initially became ​involved ​in October.”

Analysts this month have said that a renewed bidding war for Warner Bros. seems “inevitable” given the antitrust concerns surrounding Netflix’s potential acquisition. President Trump on Tuesday appeared to distance himself from speculation around his closeness to Paramount’s owners, posting on Truth Social, “If they are friends, I’d hate to see my enemies!”

Warner’s attempt to influence its shareholders could fuel a higher bid from Paramount in the coming weeks — shareholders currently have until January 8 to decide whether to accept the current offer.

Paramount’s offer, in contrast, was described in the letter as “illusory,” providing “inadequate value,” and likely to impose “numerous, significant risks and costs on WBD.” The board said Paramount has “misled WBD shareholders that its proposed transaction has a ‘full backstop’ from the Ellison family,” and the board also outlined that it doesn’t believe there is a “material difference in regulatory risk between the PSKY offer and the Netflix merger.”

WBD shares dipped in the minutes leading up to the market close on Tuesday after news leaked that its management was preparing to encourage shareholders to reject Paramounts bid, and shares of the HBO parent were down at $28.66, off 0.83% from yesterday’s close, as of 7:56 a.m. ET on Wednesday. Netflix was ticking higher, up around 1.7%, and Paramount Skydance was modestly in the red, down 1%.

Several outlets have reported that Jared Kushners firm would back out of the group that had been assembled to help finance the Paramount bid. Confirming this withdrawal, a spokesperson for the firm helmed by the president’s son-in-law told NBC News that “the dynamics ​of the investment have changed significantly ​since we initially became ​involved ​in October.”

Analysts this month have said that a renewed bidding war for Warner Bros. seems “inevitable” given the antitrust concerns surrounding Netflix’s potential acquisition. President Trump on Tuesday appeared to distance himself from speculation around his closeness to Paramount’s owners, posting on Truth Social, “If they are friends, I’d hate to see my enemies!”

Warner’s attempt to influence its shareholders could fuel a higher bid from Paramount in the coming weeks — shareholders currently have until January 8 to decide whether to accept the current offer.

power
Jon Keegan

Senators open investigation into data centers’ effect on consumer utility bills

As Big Tech builds more and more massive data centers in small towns around the country, the public is starting to ask questions about whether they are to blame for rising utility bills.

Today Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) sent letters to the CEOs of some of the biggest builders of data centers: Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, CoreWeave, Digital Realty, and Equinix.

The senators wrote:

“Utility companies have spent billions of dollars updating the electrical grid to accommodate the unprecedented energy demands of AI data centers and appear to recoup the costs by raising residential utility bills. Through these utility price increases, American families bankroll the electricity costs of trillion-dollar tech companies.”

Electricity prices in the US are indeed up, rising 6.2% since last year. A recent Bloomberg analysis found that ratepayers within 50 miles of data centers saw rates increase up to 276% over the past five years.

The companies have until January 12, 2026, to respond to the senators.

The senators wrote:

“Utility companies have spent billions of dollars updating the electrical grid to accommodate the unprecedented energy demands of AI data centers and appear to recoup the costs by raising residential utility bills. Through these utility price increases, American families bankroll the electricity costs of trillion-dollar tech companies.”

Electricity prices in the US are indeed up, rising 6.2% since last year. A recent Bloomberg analysis found that ratepayers within 50 miles of data centers saw rates increase up to 276% over the past five years.

The companies have until January 12, 2026, to respond to the senators.

power
Hyunsoo Rim

TIME names the “Architects of AI” as its Person of the Year for 2025

TIME just announced its Person of the Year… and it’s not a single person.  

The magazine selected the “Architects of AI” as its 2025 honoree, spotlighting the executives and engineers behind the year’s AI boom. One of the two covers features eight tech leaders perched on a steel beam — recreating the iconic “Lunch Atop a Skyscraper” photo from 1932 — including Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, AMD’s Lisa Su, xAI’s Elon Musk, OpenAI’s Sam Altman, and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang at the center, whose chips power many of today’s AI models.

Western Auctioneer with Two Fingers up and Gavel in Hand

As investors pick sides in Netflix vs. Paramount, analysts say a renewed Warner Bros. bidding war looks inevitable

Analysts at Bloomberg on Wednesday said Paramount’s WBD hostile takeover offer could go as high as $35 per share.

Latest Stories

Sherwood Media, LLC produces fresh and unique perspectives on topical financial news and is a fully owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., and any views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of any other Robinhood affiliate, including Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood Securities, LLC, Robinhood Crypto, LLC, or Robinhood Money, LLC.