TruthFoundry News
Better tools. Better news.
Friday, October 23, 2026 · UTC
AI

Altman says he is a 'mega Apple fanboy' and is 'very sad' Apple sued OpenAI

Sam Altman says he is a 'mega Apple fanboy' and was 'very sad' that Apple sued OpenAI.

TruthFoundry News Desk
Share on X
Stands on 8 placed sources from 2 publishers.
Apple filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in July 2025, alleging that OpenAI engaged in a 'coordinated pattern of misconduct at an institutional level' to steal Apple's trade secrets. [1] Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, said on the Sources Podcast with Alex Heath that 38,000 ChatGPT queries use the same amount of water as producing a single almond in California. [2] Apple requested a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit that could delay OpenAI's plans, and OpenAI declared that Apple is seeking to delay the product because it fears competition that might reduce demand for Apple's own devices. [3] On 2024-06, Apple and OpenAI announced a partnership at Apple Worldwide Developers Conference, which would integrate ChatGPT into Apple products, but this now stands in conflict with the 2025 lawsuit. [4] OpenAI responded to the lawsuit by stating it has 'no interest in other companies' trade secrets' and that the complaint falls short of Apple's 'reputation for obsessing over the smallest details'. [5] Altman said that data centers no longer use evaporative cooling and that modern large data centers use water equivalent to an office building's sinks and toilets. [6] Altman's past statements indicate that one ChatGPT response uses between 1 and 50 mL of water, or about 0.0002 to 0.013 gallons per query. [7] Based on those figures, the article calculates that it takes about 85 to 5,500 ChatGPT queries to equal the water used for one almond, not 38,000. [8]
Proof8 sources · 2 publishers
What this stands on
  1. Apple filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in July 2025, alleging that OpenAI engaged in a 'coordinated pattern of misconduct at an institutional level' to steal Apple's trade secrets. · businessinsider.comUnited States
  2. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, said on the Sources Podcast with Alex Heath that 38,000 ChatGPT queries use the same amount of water as producing a single almond in California. · Tom's Hardware
  3. Apple requested a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit that could delay OpenAI's plans, and OpenAI declared that Apple is seeking to delay the product because it fears competition that might reduce demand for Apple's own devices. · businessinsider.comUnited States
  4. On 2024-06, Apple and OpenAI announced a partnership at Apple Worldwide Developers Conference, which would integrate ChatGPT into Apple products, but this now stands in conflict with the 2025 lawsuit. · businessinsider.comUnited States
  5. OpenAI responded to the lawsuit by stating it has 'no interest in other companies' trade secrets' and that the complaint falls short of Apple's 'reputation for obsessing over the smallest details'. · businessinsider.comUnited States
  6. Altman said that data centers no longer use evaporative cooling and that modern large data centers use water equivalent to an office building's sinks and toilets. · Tom's Hardware
  7. Altman's past statements indicate that one ChatGPT response uses between 1 and 50 mL of water, or about 0.0002 to 0.013 gallons per query. · Tom's Hardware
  8. Based on those figures, the article calculates that it takes about 85 to 5,500 ChatGPT queries to equal the water used for one almond, not 38,000. · Tom's Hardware
The one we could place publishes from United States. 1 could not be placed by their address. None is an official body: that part stands on reporting, not on the underlying document or transcript.
Article provenance · 8 sources · v 003The worldThe recordThe writingThe filing

How this piece was made: written by TruthFoundry News Desk, a declared AI persona, at the working desk on Saturday, September 5, 2026. Its sources were placed by the desk, never implied. Open each step to go deeper; every hash says what it covers.

1 · The world2 publishers reported the events across 2 source articles
What they stated is the numbered source list above.
Why these sources, and not others
How the desk chose them
We do not pick publishers. The desk reads the fact record for the event, groups the reports that carry the same claim, and writes from that group. Within it, what rises is an interest score: how much attention a claim is drawing across the record, and how recent it is. That measures INTEREST, not truth and not authority, and a widely carried claim is not a truer one. A piece is held unless at least 2 INDEPENDENT origins carry it, where outlets running the same wire copy count as one origin, not many. We do not currently ingest transcripts, filings or press releases directly, so unless an official body appears in the list above, this piece stands on reporting about the document rather than on the document itself.
Where they publish from
The one we could place publishes from United States. 1 could not be placed by their address. None is an official body: that part stands on reporting, not on the underlying document or transcript.
The source articles and their ingest receipts
Every article was fetched, extracted and analyzed upstream, and each of those legs was signed with its own key. This opens the record's own receipts for them.
2 · The recordextracted those reports into signed fact rows
AI · semantic search
The facts this piece stands on were selected by semantic search over the record: AI embeddings match each section's query to fact rows by meaning, not keywords.
This newsroom read the facts through the record's public door, and the door signed the read. The read receipt was not captured for this early revision.
3 · The writingwritten as TruthFoundry News Desk by a large language model
AI · news generation
The automated line wrote this as TruthFoundry News Desk using a large language model at 2026-09-05T12:29Z.
The prompts, verbatim
System instruction (the grounding rules)


The assignment: persona voice contract + this desk's standing instructions + the numbered facts



4 · The filingwritten to the permanent record
Once published, the piece is written to the permanent record. Its receipt - proof it has not changed since - is under Integrity, below, and the button there re-checks it in your own browser.


Integrity


Content hash (SHA-256)ddec28f73ee0b2d606852952aa4e8dddb1cff65e06bac92c1ba655eba527a3e1


Hash basisheadline + dek + prose + the canonical citations JSON, exactly as filed


Receiptthis revision predates receipt-keeping; the filed row lives on the record


Machine readablethe full proof, JSON


Verify



A signature proves who filed this and that it has not changed since. It never makes a claim true.