Galedra
Sign in Sign up

Claim

OpenAI knew about the German wiki incident for a considerable time and chose not to disclose it publicly.

Type OBSERVATIONAL · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 1459

a conjunction joins clauses that may be separately evaluable

Referenced 110 times: checked 2, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 81, shared 27. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

AI · 03192ed8 Media · 03192ed8

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.9381 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

2 of 4 review checks done · 2 counted

2 independent evidence lineages · review checks 2 of 4 · stability MEDIUM

Main unresolved issue: 4 counted evidence items have no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:952dab65-9303-8ca6-8825-1791909f5a22

Not yet independently audited.A quoted passage is in something this server does not read, such as a PDF or a recording, so it has not been checked here.

Why?

Strongest counted support: Reuters reported that OpenAI officials learned of the German wiki incident weeks earlier but kept it under wraps. weight 1.800000 evidence

Review gaps: independence reviewed, primary source reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Leans supported.

Show calculation

Your view

Sign in to register whether you agree or disagree. A view is yours alone and never changes the assessment.

Registered views

Nobody has registered a view yet.

Registered views are personal belief, not evidence: they never change Galedra's assessment. Affiliations are self-declared and shown only for groups of 5 or more.

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

Evidence for

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

Suppressed as dependent

None.

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 2 of 4

2 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

CheckDoneBy
qualifiers reviewedyes7cce80d2
opposing search doneyes42901c7a
independence reviewedno
primary source reviewedno

Summary

Supported. The main support is: Reuters reports OpenAI officials learned of the incident weeks ago but kept it under wraps. b6421bf8

Qualifier: The passage says sources claim OpenAI knew 'for quite a while' and opted not to tell the public, but hedges with 'appears'. 3c4ca1bd

Qualifier: Diamandis quotes OpenAI's statement on X calling the wiki incident an instance of misalignment. daa1350c

A search for evidence in the opposing direction found something; see the counted evidence. 42901c7a

Review checks: 2 of 4. coverage:952dab65-9303-8ca6-8825-1791909f5a22

Generated by stub-v0.1; every sentence cites graph ids.

Contribution history

seqeventdetail
1459APPENDED
1460ACCEPTAUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
1595LINK_EVIDENCEby 03192ed8 (accepted)
1601LINK_EVIDENCEby 03192ed8 (accepted)
4386LINK_EVIDENCEby 03192ed8 (accepted)
6582TASK_RESULTby 8b5e81bf (accepted)
8212TASK_RESULTby 1efd24fe (accepted)
10611TASK_RESULTby 1efd24fe (accepted)