The articles of incorporation under which Open AI was set up as a nonprofit make very clear that they have a legally binding fiduciary duty to do certain things.

And what we chart in the piece is this kind of years-long process of the company kind of converting itself out from under those restrictions.

It's the Lawfare podcast. I'm Kate Klonick, senior editor at Lawfare with Ronan Farrow

and Andrew Morant's writers at The New Yorker and authors of a huge 16,000 word piece published

last week in The New Yorker titled Sam Altmanman may control our future. Can he be trusted?

Sam Altman is one figure. He's a consequential one, but he's especially consequential as a window

through which to view a wider dynamic that critics in the piece describe as a race to the bottom.

Today we're talking with Ronan and Andrew about the legal and national security implications

of a number of things that are revealed in their article and discussing what some of the

policy options might be going forward.

So I want to start for just to take a moment, for the better just rule of headlines, which is that if you ask a question a headline, as you do, the answer is always no.

So in theory, this could be a very quick interview.

No, we can't trust Sam Altman.

But there is actually so much here, much more than just kind of a profile, so to speak, of Sam Allman.

You guys spent over a year reporting this, conducting 100 plus interviews.

And it really brings the receipts on a lot of information while putting it into a full narrative.

And so there's a couple of things that I think have been underreported as news and might have legal

ramifications.

So I wanted to unpack those because it is lawfare. First,

the general volume of lies or the lack of public disclosure to the corporate board and the possibility,

if not legal fraud, certainly fraud in the colloquial sense to the public. Second, I want to

talk about alignment and trust and safety issues if we have some time. And then third, the national

...