I don't understand why "OpenAI says" should be considered any more meaningful than "someone on HN says" when they provide equal amounts of evidence. Sure, OpenAI would plausibly have more pertinent info, but given that they actively are choosing not to share it and have way more incentive to lie than a random HN stranger, the case they're making literally couldn't be any weaker.

It’s fascinating how people here and elsewhere seem to lose any semblance of media literacy when it comes to what AI corpos say. "B-but… why would Sam Altman lie to me?!"