I bet this isn't true and he wasn't supposed to say it.

Of course they'd want to leave the door open to building their own products, in order to continue to be able to present those widgets and have exclusive access to the resulting data.

Just because ChatGPT+Plugins isn't going to be the center of people's lives (did anyone truly think it would?) doesn't mean that when they have another product idea that they have unique insight into, they won't want to bring it to the world directly.

This is the usual "Netflix attempting to become HBO faster than HBO can become Netflix" and a critical eye to where the work is being done and the value being delivered.

(disclosure: paying OpenAI customer, no other relation)

“Your honor, the defendant said some things in an interview that they don’t agree with anymore and I want to sue!”

“Sue for what?”

“Sue to make them believe the thing they said!!!”

Lol.

…just not anything that would survive a motion to dismiss.

Edit: Or I guess as you said in a reply to a sibling comment, you might only count it as "open to legal action" if you have a decent chance of losing.

It’s hardly bad journalism to say no to such a request.

I bet open ai could twist my arm too.

There might also be some concern related to the comments on the approach to plugins. Plugins not having a product market fit reflects slightly negatively, on the companies powering the plugin and OpenAI. It becomes harder to get companies to invest time in creating plugins. I am not sure if the there was an option to remove just the issue sections of the post.

Create an interesting and speculative situation out of nothing

Heck this article is top 3 on HNs front page right now

In that case it doesn't matter that the content it's still on the internet, it only matters that you took action and fixed the "error".

This was followed by a public fireside chat hosted by Azeem Azhar and QA session.

From the context, I would believe that OpenAI didn’t want some of the points discussed in a closed room to go to public.