x.com/ohryansbelt/status/2041151473984123274?cursor=DAAKCgABHFTtlea__SoLAAIAAAMc...

This post overstates what The New Yorker reported about Amodei's notes.

The article does say that Dario Amodei kept detailed private notes for years under the heading "My Experience with OpenAI". But it does not say that those notes themselves totaled 200+ pages. Instead, it says that a collection of more than 200 pages of documents related to Amodei had circulated, and that collection included his notes along with internal emails and memos.

So the accurate reading is:

• true: Amodei kept private notes under that heading;
• false: those notes alone totaled 200+ pages.

That 200+ figure referred to a broader document set, not just the private notes themselves.

This sentence misstates what The New Yorker reported about Dario Amodei's materials.

The article says the reporters interviewed more than 100 people and reviewed Sutskever's previously undisclosed memos. It also says Amodei kept private notes under the heading "My Experience with OpenAI." But the 200+ page figure did not refer only to Amodei's private notes.

The New Yorker states that "a collection of more than two hundred pages of documents related to Amodei, including those notes and internal e-mails and memos" had circulated. In other words, the article was based on a larger document set that included Amodei's notes, not on 200+ pages of Amodei's private notes specifically.

So the post is accurate about the interviews and the existence of Amodei's notes, but inaccurate in attributing the entire 200+ pages to the notes alone.