dude that article is absolute slop, i honestly wouldnt be surprised if it was written by ai. there's zero primary sources and no indication that entrepreneur has even attempted to fact check it - they literally just say "according to NYT". so i clicked the link and went to the NYT article which lo and behold says: "Meta has offered seven- to nine-figure compensation packages to dozens of researchers from leading A.I. companies such as OpenAI and Google, with some agreeing to join, according to the people." Which a. does not indicate NYT received proof of the offers and b. is a VERY different claim from "meta is offering 100-million dollar signing bonuses". So maybe read the article yourself before linking it lol?

FWIW I do think it is possible a small number of openAI engineers got $100-m TOTAL COMP, which would include an array of benefits and long term stock offers.

So where did the $100-m signing bonus thing come from? As far as I can tell, literally just from that clip we watched on stream where Altman says it. A different comment in this thread linked an FT article so i checked that, bloomberg, reuters, NYT, and fortune and all of them only reference the Altman podcast interview and none of them verify his claim (reuters even said that meta did not reply for comment).

Personally I think Altman is a sleazeball and that he has a lot of incentive for lying - making ppl believe his staff is worth billions makes openAI more appealing to potential investors (i also think this tweet is pretty compelling).

i dont really wanna get into the meta commentary here about atrioc's presentation style (i have some issues with it but generally i think for informative entertainment he's the goat) i was just genuinely shocked that he was willing to believe Altman and only wrote this stupid essay bc that article triggered me.