Alright, imagine you have a big block of LEGO bricks. You want to build a really cool castle, but it's going to take a long time because there are so many bricks and different parts.

Now, let's say there's this super smart kid, Mira, who likes building things too. She's been practicing and learning how to build stuff for a long time. She knows all the tricks and shortcuts because she's really good at it!

One day, Mira decides to start her own LEGO-building club with some other kids. They call it "Thinking Machines Lab." In this club, they work together to build even cooler things than they could alone. They share ideas, help each other, and learn from one another.

So, when you hear that Mira Murati started Thinking Machines Lab, it means she left her old job at a place called OpenAI (which is like a big LEGO company) to start her own thing with some friends. And even though we don't know exactly what they're building yet, we can guess it's going to be something awesome because Mira and her friends are really smart and work well together! Read from source...

It seems like you're mentioning criticisms aimed at a particular article. To provide an accurate response, I'd need some context or specific points about what has been criticized in the article. Could you please share more details about the article's content, the specific criticisms made against it, and any relevant sources? Here are some aspects that critics might focus on:

1. **Factual Accuracy**: Critics may point out inaccuracies, misrepresentations of facts, or unverified claims in the article.

2. **Bias**: They might highlight a lack of objectivity, selective use of information to support a particular viewpoint, or personal biases influencing the content.

3. **Logical Fallacies**: Critics could identify flawed reasoning, circular arguments, ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, or other logical fallacies in the article's argumentation.

4. **Emotional Language and Manipulation**: Some critics might take issue with overly emotive language, fear-mongering, or other manipulative tactics used to sway readers' opinions rather than rely on clear reasoning and evidence.

5. **Lack of Contextualization**: Critics may argue that the article fails to provide enough background information or consider alternative perspectives on the topic at hand.

6. **Plagarism or Lack of Citation**: They might call out unoriginal content, plagiarism, or failure to credit sources appropriately.

Here's a general response format you can use to address these criticisms:

**Addressing Criticisms**:

- [Criticism Point 1]: (Provide a respectful and clear refutation or clarification based on evidence and facts.)
- [Criticism Point 2]: (Repeat the above step for each criticism.)

If none of these points apply, please provide more details about the specific criticisms so I can help you address them effectively.

Positive.

Reasoning:

* The article discusses several AI companies founded by former OpenAI leaders.
* It highlights the potential and success of these startups and their founders.
* There are no negative aspects or challenges mentioned about these companies in the given text.
* Keywords like "successful", "funded", "leaders", and "potential" suggest a positive sentiment.