“But of course they didn’t.”
Our reading:
OpenAI did not propose amendments to SB-1047 months earlier, such as sun-setting the California law once sufficiently similar federal law existed.
Assessment: Unresolved
What happened
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Unresolved
We checked, and the evidence so far doesn’t settle it.
Judged on a plain reading. They named no measure, so we used the reading a typical informed reader would take. It is spelled out under “How we judged it”.
Evidence up to . Checked .
Why
OpenAI’s August 21, 2024 letter opposed SB-1047 and described engagement with the senator’s staff over several months [e1]. It does not identify specific amendments proposed during those months or establish that none were proposed [e1]. Wiener’s response, also dated August 21, addresses the opposition letter without establishing what OpenAI proposed earlier [e2]. These sources leave the claimed absence of earlier substantive amendment proposals unresolved, including proposals made privately [e1, e2].
Caveats
- The evidence does not provide a complete correspondence record or direct accounts that establish or exclude earlier private amendment proposals.
- Engagement alone does not establish that OpenAI proposed a substantive amendment.
- The phrase “months ago” has no precise cutoff.
Evidence (2 items)
Context only: OpenAI, hosted by The Decoder,
national security implications
Why it matters: The letter records OpenAI's August opposition and preference for federal regulation. It does not document whether OpenAI proposed amendments during earlier months.
- Publisher
- OpenAI, hosted by The Decoder
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- About events on
- Published
Context only: Office of California Senator Scott Wiener,
the OpenAI letter
Why it matters: Wiener's response characterizes the August letter, not all earlier OpenAI communications. It therefore cannot establish the historical negative claimed by Marcus.
- Publisher
- Office of California Senator Scott Wiener
- Kind of source
- News report
- About events on
- Published
How we judged it
- Kind of claim
- Observation
- Deadline
- None given. We don’t add one.
Where we had to interpret
- 'They' refers to OpenAI, and 'didn’t' denies the earlier amendment proposals described immediately before it.
- The ordinary reading concerns substantive proposals months before the August opposition, not merely whether OpenAI publicly supported the bill.
- The sunset clause is an example rather than the only amendment that would count.
- For testing timing, 'months ago' ordinarily means approximately June 2024 or earlier. A borderline late-June proposal would require explicit review rather than an automatic cutoff.
- The record window runs from the bill's introduction through publication; any qualifying proposal must still satisfy the earlier-timing requirement.
- Private proposals count because the speaker did not restrict the claim to public submissions.
Right if: Reliable records or direct accounts covering OpenAI's earlier engagement establish that it made no substantive amendment proposals during the relevant earlier months.
Wrong if: A dated submission, correspondence, or reliable direct account establishes that OpenAI proposed a substantive SB-1047 amendment months before August 23, 2024.
We wrote this test after the outcome was known.
What would settle it
Dated correspondence or a reliable direct account identifying a substantive amendment OpenAI proposed approximately June 2024 or earlier, with its date and recipient; or sufficiently complete records or direct accounts establishing that no qualifying proposals occurred. Any trade association proposal would require evidence that it acted expressly on OpenAI’s behalf.
We found 8 claims in this post. See them all.
Full record
Source and dates
Marcus on AI, Scoop: What former employees of OpenAI are worried about, paragraph 24.
- Said
- We read the source
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence up to
- Checked
We read this wording on 2026-10-28. The post may have been edited after 2024-08-23.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the posts we read.
: Marcus on AI, Scoop: What former employees of OpenAI are worried about
But of course they didn’t.
- Where
- paragraph 24
- Published
- 2024-08-23
- We read it
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Versions
- Current: Unresolved. Evidence up to 2026-10-28.
What happened to this record
PublishedBy us
Published after both AI reviews and the final check passed.
Held backBy us
The final check of the write-up failed.