The NYT wrote:

"With the Education Department, OpenAI’s technology tried to hack the website to gather data from the department’s civil rights office but failed, researchers from the A.I. research firm Transluce said."

So a third party apparently confirmed that a hack was attempted.

The NYT also writes:

"No A.I. company has been involved with as many disclosures of rogue incidents as OpenAI."

I think there is a certain amount of mental gymnastics needed to believe that they are establishing themselves as the industry leader in rogue incidents, as a strategy to gain an antitrust edge.

The public is paying close attention to the AI industry. That's the regime in which regulatory capture and similar strategies would be expected to fail: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2026/09/wh...

Sam and Dario have been doomers, or doomer-adjacent, for something like a decade at this point.

Occam's Razor is simply that they believe what they are saying about AI doom.

> as a strategy to gain an antitrust edge.

They are explicitly asking to anti-trust exception is the issue.

If they merely believe what they are saying that AI is ultra dangerous, nothing stops them from simply making the perfectly rational business decision to slow down a bit. No anti-trust exception needed. Just make the decision on your own, and don't sign some huge agreement with their competitor.

It doesn’t really matter if they believed or not initially, the dynamics at play now are completely different and both companies are facing increasing competition and costs of doing business, with no path to profitability. I’m pretty sure that takes priority over their personal beliefs