zlacker

> 'Wealthy tech entrepreneurs including Elon Musk SAID they were going to be transparent but now aren't'

The article doesn't say that. It says they launched OpenAI to be transparent but now it isn't. Maybe your "they" is ambiguous, does it refer to OpenAI or wealthy entrepreneurs including Musk?

In the article the they isn't ambiguous, but it says something different overall:

>Wealthy tech entrepreneurs including Elon Musk launched OpenAI in 2015 as a nonprofit research lab that they said would involve society and the public in the development of powerful AI, unlike Google and other giant tech companies working behind closed doors. In line with that spirit, OpenAI’s reports to US tax authorities have from its founding said that any member of the public can review copies of its governing documents, financial statements, and conflict of interest rules.

They refers to the entrepreneurs, but it says they said OpenAI would be transparent. In your rewording they presumably refers to the entrepreneurs, but now you make it sound like it says the entrepreneurs now aren't transparent, rather than OpenAI.

>>cma+(OP)
It doesn't say it directly, but it would be a reasonable reading. English, unlike a programming language, relies on pragmatic cues for interpretation. And it's a journalist's job to communicate clearly in their writing.

> Maybe your "they" is ambiguous, does it refer to OpenAI or wealthy entrepreneurs including Musk?

The wealthy entrepreneurs have launched it and, by implication, control it. Thus, OpenAI is opaque solely by the choice of the wealthy entrepreneurs.

>>cma+(OP)
You're splitting hairs. The average reader surely isn't going to separate the wealthy tech entrepreneurs from OpenAI, and they shouldn't — OpenAI is still run by wealthy tech entrepreneurs.

The point is that it's disingenuous to lead with Elon Musk by name, and no other founders or executives by name, when he presumably had nothing to do with the policy change.