Having been on both sides of these types of meetings, I don’t think the saying they won’t compete thing and that being false is realistic. If you meet with peop

Having been on both sides of these types of meetings, I don’t think the saying they won’t compete thing and that being false is realistic. If you meet with people/partners/influencers/press, you typically don’t lie like this, especially when you’re of the size/attention of OpenAI (there are always exceptions but I just don’t see it here). There are situations where you don’t want what are your legitimate and current plans put out in the world in writing by people other than you, especially if they are things that could change. I think there is a scenario where OpenAI today doesn’t intend to compete with its API users, but doesn’t want to make that a definitive statement when it might not know the future could hold or to account for parallel lines of development (if OpenAI was already working on an area and API users decide to get into that space too, how does that work. That happens at companies that offer both platforms and their own products all the time and it is rarely nefarious (obviously, sometimes it is), but I can see how that wouldn’t want to be a public message OpenAI would want out there, particularly if it isn’t directly from them. That said, I really do have to think this was a meeting that was designed to be on background and not represented as “OpenAI reveals their roadmap” and that this was a miscommunication from the jump. Just for reference, having been in these sorts of meetings as both a reporter/analyst and as the person providing information, it isn’t uncommon to have a set of guidelines known as “Chatham House Rules” [1] or something similar, where you can use the information, but not state it verbatim from notes or directly quote. But people that aren’t primarily reporters or analysts or lobbyists whatever, that isn’t always understood. Which is why you need to be explicit in the terms of the publicness of the meeting. Again, this is only a guess (but it is backed up by 15 years of professional work as both a reporter/analyst as well as someone who is often sent to talk to the press/influencers/customers/users in situations that have varying degrees of on/off-recordness, I have to think this was just a misunderstanding of how publicly the contents of a conversation were designed to be. Again, I don’t think that asking people to take something like this down is the right move most of the time, especially if the article already got attention and write ups. Just chalk it up to a loss and commit to explaining expectations better in the future (if someone was clear on the rules of disclosure and violates them, that’s entirely different. I have zero reason to believe that happened here). If someone posts something and it doesn’t hit the front page of hacker news and you catch it in the first five or ten minutes, yeah, asking to take it down might be OK — but in general, I say let it go. That said, I can’t help but wonder if it was a strategic mistake, not realizing that the takedown of the article would be noticed. The truth is, we won’t know unless Raza or Sam comments, and neither has a real incentive to comment IMHO. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule