That's a fake explanation, it skips explaining/justifying how OpenAi "heard about" the result

We are told in the statement that there were rumours already going around about a Stokes result (I even know about the rumors in question. It was all over twitter in the right spaces) and that Tristan contacts OpenAI about the rumors. In the message, it's pretty clear Tristan has made some result.

So either the rumors or Tristan's contact would explain it fine.

	▲	calf 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		One should not evaluate explanations based on level of "fine"/innocuousness, in ethics that is called motivated reasoning or something. The whole point of Tristan's first email was to address the issue of the rumors so in fact this explanation confounds several things (in terms of the mutual knowledge of the conversants and their intentions). Based on this lack of understanding it is pointless to continue this thread