The first clue is this: "In conversations between The Atlantic and 10 current and former employees at OpenAI..."
When you're reporting something like this, especially when using anonymous sources (not anonymous to you, but sources that have good reasons not to want their names published), you can't just trust what someone tells you - they may have their own motives for presenting things in a certain way, or they may just be straight up lying.
So... you confirm what they are saying with other sources. That's why "10 current and former employees" is mentioned explicitly in the article.
Being published in the Atlantic helps too, because that's a publication with strong editorial integrity and a great track record.
Sam Altman, the figurehead of the generative-AI revolution,
—one must understand that OpenAI is not a technology company.
Yet: "zealous doomers" is that how people cautious of the potential power of AI are now being labeled?
> To truly understand the events of the past 48 hours—the shocking, sudden ousting of OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, arguably the figurehead of the generative-AI revolution, followed by reports that the company is now in talks to bring him back—one must understand that OpenAI is not a technology company. At least, not like other epochal companies of the internet age, such as Meta, Google, and Microsoft.
The key piece here is "At least, not like other epochal companies of the internet age, such as Meta, Google, and Microsoft." - which then gets into the weird structure of OpenAI as a non-profit, which is indeed crucial to understanding what has happened over the weekend.
This is good writing. The claim that "OpenAI is not a technology company" in the opening paragraph of the story instantly grabs your attention and makes you ask why they would say that... a question which they then answer in the next few sentences.