Not to reduce the value of the insight, but since she coauthored the paper with Google employees she probably had access to models more advanced than those which were available to the general public
At that point, OpenAI was still fairly clearly at the babbling obvious nonsense phase; I would wonder was Google's stuff much better.
I also wonder if the original authors would have been surprised to learn that, by 2023, lawyers would be citing fake precedent made up by a machine. The progression to "dangerous nonsense" really does seem to have been worryingly fast.
This isn't that dissimilar to working at any sufficiently advanced R&D outfit, which strongly demonstrates the principle "the future is already here but isn't evenly distributed".