The anonymous critique circulating on fringe boards highlights a figure who 'barely knows how to program,' possesses 'very little technical knowledge in general according to colleagues,' lacks trustworthiness, commands no deep loyalty, yet has amassed enormous power in record time. While the original post frames this through a crude ethnic lens, the underlying pattern demands serious examination: elite selection in technology, particularly AI, often prioritizes connections, narrative control, charisma, and strategic maneuvering over raw technical competence or consistent candor.

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, exemplifies this dynamic. Multiple reports confirm that in November 2023, OpenAI's board ousted him after determining he 'was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities.' This directly echoes concerns about trustworthiness. Ars Technica detailed how board members felt manipulated, with Altman allegedly playing them against each other and misrepresenting positions in efforts to remove a critic. Wired and CBS News covered the abrupt firing and swift reinstatement, driven by employee pressure, Microsoft backing, and Altman's extensive Silicon Valley network rather than resolution of the core governance issues.[1][2][3]

On the technical side, Altman is not trained as an AI engineer. Profiles note his computer science studies at Stanford (which he dropped out of) and early entrepreneurial efforts, but his strengths have always been in deal-making, Y Combinator leadership, and visionary promotion rather than deep ML implementation or programming prowess. Colleagues and reporting consistently position him as the operator and fundraiser who interfaces with capital and power structures, not the researcher advancing the core science. This is not unique to him but reveals how modern tech elites are selected.

Connections others miss: The OpenAI saga shows formal 'nonprofit for humanity' governance collapsing against informal networks of capital (Microsoft's influence), talent leverage (the near-unanimous employee letter), and media narrative control. Altman's rapid return despite the board's grave concerns about candor illustrates that loyalty flows to those who control resources and future optionality, not abstract principles or technical mastery. This pattern repeats across Silicon Valley—from charismatic but ultimately destructive founders like WeWork's Adam Neumann to historical cases where vision-selling outpaces verifiable competence.

In AI specifically, this selection mechanism is disturbing because the technology's stakes involve existential questions of alignment, safety, and power concentration. When elite processes reward those skilled at internal politics and external hype over rigorous engineering caution, it suggests meritocratic myths serve as useful fictions. Real advancement may depend less on who codes best and more on who navigates elite social graphs, regulatory capture, and investor signaling. As AI automates technical skills further, the 'goycattle' critique (stripped of its bigotry) inadvertently points to a deeper truth: credentials and narrow expertise are becoming commoditized, while unaccountable networked power endures. This is how power actually works at the frontier—not pure Darwinian competence, but sophisticated games of influence that reward specific personality types and backgrounds.[4]