The entire article is about the semantics of the word "open", so an organization literally named "OpenAI" is obviously relevant on the article's own terms. Bes

The entire article is about the semantics of the word "open", so an organization literally named "OpenAI" is obviously relevant on the article's own terms. Besides which, this is a summary of a research paper that DID include OpenAI on the list. Omitting it is one of several choices that change the takeaways of the paper (linked above), which did a much better job at acknowledging and sorting the benefits of different varieties of "open"-ness. Overall, TFA takes a cherrypicked scope on the naming controversy that hides the fact that some participants are contributing much more to public research and access than others.