I think the point here isn’t whether that claim is true or not, it’s that people at OpenAI believed it to be true and proceeded anyway.
That is the actual title of the article. The one currently on the HN post is editorialized.
Ehh? The specifics of the claim above are that this is what is what the article is titled and what it discusses. Don’t sealion people who are only pointing out an inaccurate title.
I'm pointing out that the original title of the actual article is inaccurate and it would be helped by actual specifics. The actual plaintiffs in the lawsuit do not appear to have been put out of work.