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.

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.

Many models today, even if they don't train on OpenAI data, still claim to be trained by OpenAI due to the prevalence of OpenAI outputs on the internet that are hard to filter out.

Concerns about data privacy are significant; companies are hesitant to share sensitive datasets with large AI providers like OpenAI, which could lead to the emergence of new cybersecurity solutions tailored for AI applications.

Many former OpenAI employees may not have fully understood the implications of the non-disparagement agreement they signed, often feeling pressured to comply without reading the fine print.

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

Research models at the Allen Institute for AI use OpenAI APIs for understanding post-training, and they will identify themselves as being trained by OpenAI unless specified otherwise.

OpenAI has stated that DeepSeek uses their API, and there are claims that it is a distilled model trained on OpenAI's outputs, raising questions about OpenAI's terms of service that prohibit building competitors with outputs from their models.

Just because a model is open-sourced doesn't mean it can't be subverted; there have been instances of backdoors in open source software that could also apply to AI models.