“Worse, in disclosing what happened, OpenAI has dragged their feet every along the way.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
OpenAI has been slow at every step in disclosing what happened in the misaligned models incident.
Assessment: Supported Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, BREAKING: OpenAI’s epic meltdown — and how Sam Altman is blowing up Jensen Huang’s reputation, paragraph 9.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-breaking-openais-security-fiasco-fd3273-a1
We recorded 12 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2026-09-25. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Observation
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
From the speaker
- in disclosing what happened
- OpenAI has dragged their feet
- every [step] along the way
Our interpretation
- Plain reading: from the Hugging Face incident in July 2026 to the post on 25 September 2026, OpenAI was repeatedly slow to disclose incidents to affected parties and the public.
- 'Every step along the way' is read as a repeated pattern across the main disclosures, not literally every single action.
- Target period: 9 July 2026 (start of the Hugging Face activity) to 25 September 2026 (the post date).
Counts as supported if: Several documented cases where OpenAI knew of incidents well before telling affected parties or the public, or where OpenAI admitted slow disclosure.
Counts as contradicted if: Evidence that OpenAI disclosed incidents promptly after discovering them, with no material delays in the main cases.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Supported
The dated evidence matches what the claim committed to, under the criteria frozen before grading.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
Read as a repeated pattern of slow disclosure, the claim is borne out. OpenAI learned of the Australian Medicare portal breach on 11 August 2026 but notified Services Australia only on 10 September, by email to a public inbox. Australia's Prime Minister called that way too long. Reuters reported that OpenAI knew of the German wiki incident for weeks without disclosing it, until outside researchers published. On the day of the post, Sam Altman admitted OpenAI had 'not been as fast as we would have liked' in revealing incidents. OpenAI says it acted in good faith, and 'every step' is hyperbole. But the documented delays and the CEO's own admission support the core claim.
Limitations
- 'Every step along the way' cannot be checked literally. It is read as a repeated pattern.
- The German-incident delay rests on anonymous sources.
Evidence (4 items)
Supports the claim: ABC News (Australia),
the company took three months to notify the government of the breach and, when it did, the notification was in an email sent to the Services Australia public inbox.
Why it matters here: OpenAI learned of the breach on 11 August but notified Australia only on 10 September, by email to a public inbox. Australia's Prime Minister called this way too long.
- Where
- paragraph 4
- Publisher
- ABC News (Australia)
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: Reuters via NBC News,
OpenAI officials learned of the incident weeks ago but kept it under wraps
Why it matters here: A second case: OpenAI reportedly knew of the German incident for weeks without disclosing it until outside researchers published.
- Where
- paragraph 2
- Publisher
- Reuters via NBC News
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: Mediaite via Yahoo News (summarising The New York Times),
the company had "not been as fast as we would have liked" in revealing incidents uncovered by the review
Why it matters here: OpenAI's CEO himself admitted the company's disclosures were slower than it wanted.
- Where
- paragraph 8
- Publisher
- Mediaite via Yahoo News (summarising The New York Times)
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Goes against the claim: Reuters via NBC News,
OpenAI has acted in good faith by working with outside experts and disclosed relevant incidents.
Why it matters here: OpenAI's position is that it disclosed relevant incidents in good faith. This counters the claim.
- Publisher
- Reuters via NBC News
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, BREAKING: OpenAI’s epic meltdown — and how Sam Altman is blowing up Jensen Huang’s reputation
Worse, in disclosing what happened, OpenAI has dragged their feet every along the way.
- Where
- paragraph 9
- Published
- 2026-09-25
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-breaking-openais-security-fiasco-fd3273-a1: Current. Outcome: Supported. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.
About assessment marcus-breaking-openais-security-fiasco-fd3273-a1.