The entire article is about the semantics of the word "open", so an organization literally named "OpenAI" is obviously relevant on the article's own terms.

Besides which, this is a summary of a research paper that DID include OpenAI on the list. Omitting it is one of several choices that change the takeaways of the paper (linked above), which did a much better job at acknowledging and sorting the benefits of different varieties of "open"-ness.

Overall, TFA takes a cherrypicked scope on the naming controversy that hides the fact that some participants are contributing much more to public research and access than others.

Because it's officially "open" AI?