That's not from the LI post from the CTO that the story (or the Futurism story the linked story is apparently rereporting) is based on [0], which has the same straight-up fraud description as appears in both stories: “We told our customers there's an "AI that'll join a meeting.” In reality it was just me and my co-founder calling in to the meeting sitting there silently and taking notes by hand.”
Your quote seems likely to be from an after-the-fact damage control “clarification” post by the CEO [1] describing that the early users as close friends, who knew that it was human assisted and not machine transcription (I say seems likely to be because it expresses something similar to what you claim but slightly more distant from the original story, and doesn't have the quote you present, but it is marked as edited so it seems plausible that it at one point had your quote but decided that it needed even a stronger rewrite of the narrative for PR reasons.)
Your quote seems likely to be from an after-the-fact damage control “clarification” post by the CEO [1] describing that the early users as close friends, who knew that it was human assisted and not machine transcription (I say seems likely to be because it expresses something similar to what you claim but slightly more distant from the original story, and doesn't have the quote you present, but it is marked as edited so it seems plausible that it at one point had your quote but decided that it needed even a stronger rewrite of the narrative for PR reasons.)
[0] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sudotong_we-charged-100month-...
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/krishramineni_we-charged-100m...