Claim · 2015-12-17 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

Alexander's post of 17 December 2015 replies to the announcement of OpenAI, which it names and quotes.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

Should AI Be Open? → cites → Introducing OpenAI (2015)

Where it appears

No collection page holds this claim. It is listed with its records in the explorer.

Claim and evidence

Should AI Be Open?cites ↓Introducing OpenAI (2015)

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2015-12-17 · publication Records dated 2015 →

Scope and limitsA reply is not agreement; the record says only that the text answers the other.

The evidence 01

primary sourceSupports the claim

Should AI Be Open?

Slate Star Codex (slatestarcodex.com) · 2015-12-17

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“Some of the top names in Silicon Valley have just announced a new organization, OpenAI, dedicated to “advancing digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole…as broadly and evenly distributed as possible.”

Location in source Section II

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Scott Alexander
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 9a7b3127bed79da78f368600c0b332966d124441815fd038de6f594127f653bd). Current blog page with comments; no archive capture compared. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31; the bytes differ, and the check compared the quoted passages.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Scott Alexander, “Should AI Be Open?”, 2015-12-17.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (39 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review.

Status and meaning

Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor. An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.

Relation. An explicit reference to a work. Citation alone is neither agreement nor causal influence.

Date. Date of posting.

Record ID rd-reply-alexander-2015-should-ai-be-open-to-openai-launch-announcement