A big company called OpenAI is trying to make smart computers that can think and talk like people. But some important people who work there are leaving because they don't trust the boss, Sam Altman, to keep making things safe and good. They are worried about what will happen if the computers get too smart and don't listen to humans. Read from source...

- The article starts with an attention-grabbing headline that implies a dramatic situation, but fails to provide any concrete evidence or sources for the claim of "mass exodus" from OpenAI's AI safety team. This is a common journalistic tactic to attract readers, but it also lowers the credibility and quality of the report.
- The article then introduces Microsoft as the backer of OpenAI, without explaining what role or stake they have in the company or its activities. This creates confusion for the reader who may not be familiar with the relationship between the two entities, and also raises questions about the motives behind the mention of Microsoft.
- The article names Ilya Sutskever and Jan Leike as leaders of the superalignment team, without providing any background or context on what this team does or why it is important for AI safety. This makes it hard for the reader to understand the significance of their departure from OpenAI, and also suggests that the author did not do enough research on the topic or the company.
- The article implies a causal link between the attempted dismissal of CEO Sam Altman by the board and the resignations of key AI safety employees, without providing any evidence or reasoning to support this claim. This is a classic example of correlation fallacy, where the author assumes that because two events happen around the same time, they must be related. However, there could be many other factors or reasons behind the staff turnover at OpenAI, and the article fails to explore them or consider alternative explanations.
- The article quotes an unnamed insider source who claims that trust in Altman is "collapsing bit by bit" among safety-focused employees, but does not provide any details or examples of how or why this trust is eroding. This makes the claim vague and unsubstantiated, and also raises doubts about the credibility and reliability of the source. Why would an insider reveal such information to a journalist if they are not authorized or willing to be named? What is their agenda or motivation behind leaking this information? How can the reader trust the accuracy or validity of their statement?
- The article ends with another attention-grabbing quote that dramatizes the situation and implies a sense of inevitability or doom for OpenAI's future, without providing any facts or data to support it. This is an emotional appeal that tries to sway the reader's opinion or feelings, but also undermines the objectivity and professionalism of the report.

### Final answer: AI thinks the article is poorly written, biased, unsubstantiated, and emotional. It lacks factual evidence, logical reasoning, context, background, and sources. It relies on sensational