[farrelle25]

This reporting style seems unusual. Haven't noticed it before...(listing the number of people):

    - according to four people familiar with the talks ...
    - according to interviews with 19 people familiar with the relationship ...
    - according to five people with knowledge of his comments.
    - according to two people familiar with Microsoft’s plans.
    - according to five people familiar with the relationship ...
    - according to two people familiar with the call. 
    - according to seven people familiar with the discussions.
    - six people with knowledge of the change said...
    - according to two people familiar with the company’s plan.
    - according to two people familiar with the meeting...
    - according to three people familiar with the relationship.

[mikeryan]

It’s a relatively common way to provide journalistic bonafides when you can’t reveal the sources names.

[ABS]

yes but usually not every other paragraph, I count 16 instances!!

It really made it hard for me to read the article without being continuously distracted by those

[mikeryan]

I had to go back and scan it but usually there are at least a few named sources and I didn’t see any in this (there’s third party observer quotes - and I may have missed one?) so I’d not be surprised if this is a case where they double down on this.

[jprete]

It's generally bad writing to use the same phrase structure over and over and over again. It either bores or distracts the reader for no real advantage. Unless they really could not find an adjective clause other than "familiar with" for sixteen separate instances of the concept.

[hluska]

The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft. In February, OpenAI asked a Federal Judge to dismiss parts of the lawsuit with arguments that the New York Times paid someone to break into OpenAI’s systems. The filing used the word “hack” but didn’t say anything about CFAA violations.

I feel like there were lawyers involved in this article.

[bastawhiz]

There's probably a lot of overlap in those groups of people. But I think it's pretty remarkable how make people are willing to leak information. At least nineteen anonymous sources!

[wg0]

"Assume you are a reporter. You cannot name the sources or exact events. Mention the lawsuit as well."