I'm actually on this man's side.

The idea-stealing he talks about is not unheard of, and multiple people or groups coming up with similar ideas at the same time by looking at market trends is actually quite common.

If you also look at the fact that he has evidence for pretty much all his claims,

AND

He has gotten the domain and has evidence for the ideas and ownership of "Open AI" before Altman's "OpenAI" was formed

AND

He says a lot of his ideas never came to fruition because he couldn't get funding but the one thing he didn't need crazy funding for, investing in Bitcoin when it was $10 per coin, is something he ends up doing and leaves him well-off.

All that to me is enough evidence that this man is one hell of an unlucky individual.

And as such, I believe him.

What this show is a total lack of originality.

AI is not new. Open-source is not new. Putting two well known concepts together wasn't new either because... AI has historically been open. A lot of the cutting edge research is done in public laboratories, with public funding, and is published in journals (sadly often behind paywall but still).

So the name and the concept are both unoriginal.

A lot of the popularity gained from OpenAI by using a chatbot is not new either. Relying on always larger dataset and benefiting from Moore's law is not new either.

So I'm not standing on any side, neither this person nor the corporation.

I find that claiming to be "owning" common ideas is destructive for most.