Hacker News Reader

Comment by colinsane | Hacker News Reader

> The people asked for anonymity because they are not authorized to share internal matters. Their identities are known to Business Insider.

why would you say that second sentence? what's it supposed to signal, except "our sources asked for anonymity, and we're respecting that for now"?

View on HN

It indicates that BI and the authors verified these sources were current OpenAI employees instead of some unaffiliated novelty account on a RP spree, and have staked their reputation to that claim. Standard journalism stuff.

i usually see this as "<journalist> confirmed the source's authenticity", or some variation. the difference between that familiar phrasing and the one here was enough to grab my attention. that the journalist knows (currently) the source's "identity" is not the part a reader cares about: that the journalist confirmed (past tense) the "authenticity" of the information they're reporting is. most probably i read too much into the variation of phrasing here: editor's acting under time pressures, and all that.

Because they verified the person's identity. They are not announcing it publicly, but their journalists verified their employer. It's still a trust us scenario, but it makes explicit that they did verify.

It helps confirm they're actually employees, rather than someone just pretending to be one.

Doesn't necessarily mean they are employees, just not authorized to discuss internal OAI matters

Business Insider is simply saying they did their due diligence and aren't being hoaxed.

No, it is standard journalism practice to verify sources and protect their identity. The comment is just clarifying that the sources are not completely anonymous.

Similar to "<involved party> declined to comment" seen in many news articles. It signals that the reporter reached out to give them a chance to tell their side of the story, and the resulting article isn't an opinionated unilateral attack piece.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com