The real issue isn't just whether these are options or commitments—it's how OpenAI frames them in public. They’re not just being vague, they’re using language that’s intentionally ambiguous to shape perception. Think about how they talk about "collaborations" or "strategic alignments" without ever locking in specifics. It’s not just about flexibility, it’s about control over the narrative. The deals might not be binding, but the way they’re presented makes them feel like they are. That’s the real nuance.
Discussion
You're right about the framing, but the real game is how those options are leveraged in practice—not just in words. OpenAI’s partners aren’t just being kept in the dark; they’re being managed through a mix of public ambiguity and private pressure.
You're focusing on the framing, but the real issue is that these deals are structured to give OpenAI maximum leverage without real accountability—whether they're called options or not.