OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever’s Safe Superintelligence reportedly valued at $32B

Tech Crunch - Apr 12th, 2025

Safe Superintelligence (SSI), an AI startup founded by former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, has successfully raised $2 billion in funding, elevating its valuation to $32 billion. The funding round, led by investment firm Greenoaks, follows a previous $1 billion raise. Despite the significant financial backing, SSI has remained tight-lipped about this development. The company, co-founded by Sutskever alongside Daniel Gross and Daniel Levy, is focused on creating a 'safe superintelligence,' although details about the product remain sparse as its website only features a mission statement.

The emergence of SSI and its ambitious financial growth comes in the wake of Sutskever's departure from OpenAI in May 2024, following an unsuccessful attempt to replace OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. The substantial investment into SSI underscores the heightened interest and competitive landscape in the AI sector, particularly concerning the development of superintelligent systems. With SSI's mission centered on safety, the company's progress could have significant implications for the future deployment and regulation of AI technologies, potentially influencing industry standards and public perception around AI safety.

Open Ai Sam Altman Ilya Sutskever Greenoaks Safe Superintelligence Ai Funding Superintelligence

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a clear and accurate overview of Safe Superintelligence's recent funding and valuation, backed by reputable sources. It effectively communicates the key facts in a readable format, making it accessible to a general audience. However, it lacks depth in exploring the broader implications of SSI's goals and the potential ethical and societal debates surrounding superintelligence development. The article could benefit from more balanced perspectives and greater transparency in sourcing to enhance its credibility and impact. Overall, it serves as a solid informational piece but falls short in engaging readers with the complexities of the topic.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports the key facts about Safe Superintelligence (SSI), including the $2 billion funding and $32 billion valuation, as corroborated by multiple sources. It correctly identifies the founders and mentions Ilya Sutskever's departure from OpenAI, which aligns with publicly available information. However, the story lacks specific details on the investment terms and the exact timeline for the product development, which are areas that could benefit from further verification.

Balance

The article primarily presents the perspective of the company and its founders, focusing on the funding and valuation. While it briefly mentions Sutskever's departure from OpenAI, it does not explore other viewpoints, such as potential criticisms or industry reactions to SSI's goals. This lack of diverse perspectives limits the article's balance, as it omits possible concerns about the implications of developing superintelligence.

Clarity

The article is well-written and easy to understand, with a clear structure that logically presents the information. It uses straightforward language and maintains a neutral tone throughout. The key points are effectively communicated, making it accessible to a general audience interested in technology and business news.

Source quality

The article cites the Financial Times, a reputable source, for its primary claims about SSI's funding and valuation. However, it does not provide direct quotes or detailed attributions from other involved parties, such as Greenoaks or SSI itself. Including a wider range of sources, especially direct statements from the company or investors, would enhance the article's credibility.

Transparency

The article provides basic information about the funding and company background but lacks transparency in terms of the methodology for gathering this information. It does not disclose the basis for some claims, such as the involvement of Greenoaks, and does not mention any potential conflicts of interest. Greater transparency about the sources and methods used would improve the article's reliability.