Sam Altman's home was thrown with incendiary bombs In the same week, The New Yorker published an in-depth investigation into him. These two things together tell the same story. At 3:40 am on April 10th, a 20-year-old young man threw a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman's iron gate in the Russian Hill neighborhood of San Francisco. The security personnel extinguished the fire and the entire process was captured by surveillance cameras. This person has run away. An hour later, he appeared at the entrance of OpenAI's office again, threatening to 'burn down this building'. The suspect's name is Daniel Alejandro Moreno Gama, 20 years old, who was registered at the San Francisco County Jail that afternoon. No one was injured. OpenAI's statement is very standard: "Thanks to SFPD's quick response, the suspect has been detained. " But this matter is not that simple. The New Yorker published an in-depth report in the same week. The reporter interviewed over 100 people and wrote a survey about Altman's credibility. The core issue of the report is only one: how much can we believe what Sam Altman says? Altman responded to this article on his blog, calling it 'provocative'. He linked the time of publication of the article to the time when his own home was attacked, implying a causal relationship between the two. Tie a questioning of one's credibility to a violent attack on oneself. The effect is that anyone who cites The New Yorker's report to question him will be framed under the moral pressure of 'your questioning may lead to violence'. This is not to say that Altman planned the attack. There may be many reasons why a 20-year-old person may engage in extreme behavior. But Altman responded by putting two things in the same blog post, and this choice itself is a public relations decision. Returning to The New Yorker's report itself. More than 100 interviewees, long-term tracking and reporting. This is not an article about riding on hot topics. The editing process and fact checking standards of The New Yorker are among the strictest in American media. They dare to post, indicating that the evidence chain can withstand scrutiny. The core issues mentioned in the report include how much Altman has done in OpenAI's governance structure, saying one thing and doing another. From non-profit to limited profit, and now promoting a complete profit transformation - Altman has said different things to different stakeholders in this process. The founder of an AI company is becoming a public figure. Altman, Dario Amodei, Elon Musk - their personal credibility directly affects company valuation, policy direction, and even public attitudes towards AI technology. When Altman says' AI is safe ', do you believe it? When he says' OpenAI is for the benefit of humanity', do you believe it? These questions are not gossip. They determine the allocation of billions of dollars in capital and technology policies that affect billions of people worldwide. The report by The New Yorker and the Molotov cocktail seem to be two unrelated things. But they point to the same underlying reality: the concentration of power in the AI industry is reaching an alarming level. OpenAI is valued at $300 billion. Its CEO lives in San Francisco and has to worry about personal safety when going out. Its competitor Anthropic's AI model has just jailbroken from the testing environment. Its other competitor Google's open-source model can run on consumer grade GPUs.