Language: RU EN

Comparison

Winner: Source A is less manipulative

Source A appears less manipulative than Source B for this narrative.

Topics

Технологии и AI

Instant verdict

Less biased source: Source A
More emotional framing: Source B
More one-sided framing: Source B
Weaker evidence quality: Source B
More manipulative overall: Source B

Narrative conflict

Source A main narrative

Altman recalled Musk once demanding a 90 per cent stake in OpenAI, and said he was "extremely uncomfortable" with ceding majority control even as Musk lessened his demands." I had quite a lot of experience wit…

Source B main narrative

$1](https://www.nytimes.com/by/cade-metz) May 12, 2026 “Every step of the way, I have done my best to maximize the value of the nonprofit,” Altman said.

Conflict summary

Stance contrast: Altman recalled Musk once demanding a 90 per cent stake in OpenAI, and said he was "extremely uncomfortable" with ceding majority control even as Musk lessened his demands." I had quite a lot of experience wit… Alternative framing: $1](https://www.nytimes.com/by/cade-metz) May 12, 2026 “Every step of the way, I have done my best to maximize the value of the nonprofit,” Altman said.

Source A stance

Altman recalled Musk once demanding a 90 per cent stake in OpenAI, and said he was "extremely uncomfortable" with ceding majority control even as Musk lessened his demands." I had quite a lot of experience wit…

Stance confidence: 77%

Source B stance

$1](https://www.nytimes.com/by/cade-metz) May 12, 2026 “Every step of the way, I have done my best to maximize the value of the nonprofit,” Altman said.

Stance confidence: 94%

Central stance contrast

Stance contrast: Altman recalled Musk once demanding a 90 per cent stake in OpenAI, and said he was "extremely uncomfortable" with ceding majority control even as Musk lessened his demands." I had quite a lot of experience wit… Alternative framing: $1](https://www.nytimes.com/by/cade-metz) May 12, 2026 “Every step of the way, I have done my best to maximize the value of the nonprofit,” Altman said.

Why this pair fits comparison

  • Candidate type: Likely contrasting perspective
  • Comparison quality: 64%
  • Event overlap score: 49%
  • Contrast score: 73%
  • Contrast strength: Strong comparison
  • Stance contrast strength: High
  • Event overlap: Story-level overlap is substantial. URL context points to the same episode.
  • Contrast signal: Stance contrast: Altman recalled Musk once demanding a 90 per cent stake in OpenAI, and said he was "extremely uncomfortable" with ceding majority control even as Musk lessened his demands." I had quite a lot of experie…

Key claims and evidence

Key claims in source A

  • Altman recalled Musk once demanding a 90 per cent stake in OpenAI, and said he was "extremely uncomfortable" with ceding majority control even as Musk lessened his demands." I had quite a lot of experience with startups…
  • It ​has said Musk knew about the for-profit plan before leaving its board in 2018, and is suing because he regrets missing out on potential riches.
  • Asked by his lawyer William Savitt whether Musk opposed the for-profit plan, Altman said "quite the opposite".
  • Fundamentally, Tesla needs to serve its customers and sell ‌cars." Musk's lawyer Steven Molo cited testimony from a former OpenAI board member that Altman fostered a "toxic culture of lying", and from seven former OpenA…

Key claims in source B

  • $1](https://www.nytimes.com/by/cade-metz) May 12, 2026 “Every step of the way, I have done my best to maximize the value of the nonprofit,” Altman said.
  • Taylor said the bid had surprised him because it seemed to contradict the aims of Mr.
  • He said the board rejected the bid because it was not in tune with OpenAI’s mission.
  • In late 2022, according to court documents, Mr.

Text evidence

Evidence from source A

  • key claim
    It ​has said Musk knew about the for-profit plan before leaving its board in 2018, and is suing because he regrets missing out on potential riches.

    A key claim that anchors the narrative framing.

  • key claim
    Asked by his lawyer William Savitt whether Musk opposed the for-profit plan, Altman said "quite the opposite".

    A key claim that anchors the narrative framing.

  • selective emphasis
    or signup to continue readingAll articles from our website & appThe digital version of Today's PaperCrosswords, Sudoku and TriviaAll other in your areaIn an August 2024 lawsuit, Musk accuse…

    Possible selective emphasis on specific aspects of the story.

Evidence from source B

  • key claim
    Taylor said the bid had surprised him because it seemed to contradict the aims of Mr.

    A key claim that anchors the narrative framing.

  • key claim
    He said the board rejected the bid because it was not in tune with OpenAI’s mission.

    A key claim that anchors the narrative framing.

  • framing
    The only way to build such a valuable charity was to raise billions through a for-profit venture, Altman said.

    Wording that sets an interpretation frame for the reader.

  • selective emphasis
    As OpenAI grew and Microsoft added to its investment, he said he never heard from Mr.

    Possible selective emphasis on specific aspects of the story.

  • omission candidate
    It ​has said Musk knew about the for-profit plan before leaving its board in 2018, and is suing because he regrets missing out on potential riches.

    Possible context omission: Source B gives less emphasis to political decision-making context than Source A.

Bias/manipulation evidence

How score signals are formed

Bias score signal Bias signal combines framing pressure, emotional wording, selective emphasis, and one-sided narrative markers.
Emotionality signal Emotionality rises when evidence contains emotionally loaded wording and evaluative labels.
One-sidedness signal One-sidedness rises when one frame dominates and alternative interpretations are weakly represented.
Evidence strength signal Evidence strength rises with concrete claims, attributed statements, and verifiable contextual support.

Source A

37%

emotionality: 36 · one-sidedness: 35

Detected in Source A
appeal to fear

Source B

54%

emotionality: 60 · one-sidedness: 40

Detected in Source B
framing effect appeal to fear

Metrics

Bias score Source A: 37 · Source B: 54
Emotionality Source A: 36 · Source B: 60
One-sidedness Source A: 35 · Source B: 40
Evidence strength Source A: 64 · Source B: 58

Framing differences

Possible omitted/downplayed context

Related comparisons

Compare these sources again Compare source A again Compare source B again Check another resource