The non-disparagement clause at OpenAI, which prevents former employees from criticizing the company, seems to have been an obvious bluff, as it restricts free speech without any real legal backing.

In a recent exchange with an OpenAI representative, it became clear that no one had previously challenged their practices, highlighting a culture where high-integrity individuals might leave if asked to engage in unethical actions.

There's a narrative shift happening where companies like OpenAI are trying to protect themselves from claims of training on their outputs, despite many AI startups having trained on OpenAI outputs without facing bans.

OpenAI and many companies trained on internet text without permission, creating a loophole where data generated from OpenAI can be uploaded and used by others without violating terms of service.

I didn't expect the overwhelming support from the public and OpenAI employees when I spoke out against the company's practices; it was a surprising and uplifting experience that exceeded my expectations.

It's concerning that OpenAI transformed from a non-profit to a for-profit entity, which seems contradictory to its original mission.

The term 'competitor' is unclear in the AI space, leading to ethical questions about the hypocrisy of training on internet text while restricting others from using OpenAI's outputs.

OpenAI attracted talent by promising that researchers' work wouldn't be locked away but shared with the world, unlike at Google.

There is a delicate balance between being excited about AGI and the apprehension that comes with OpenAI's role in its development, which raises concerns about unilateral decision-making in AI governance.