[MutedEstate45]

The repeated safety testing delays might not be purely about technical risks like misuse or jailbreaks. Releasing open weights means relinquishing the control OpenAI has had since GPT-3. No rate limits, no enforceable RLHF guardrails, no audit trail. Unlike API access, open models can't be monitored or revoked. So safety may partly reflect OpenAI's internal reckoning with that irreversible shift in power, not just model alignment per se. What do you guys think?

[BoorishBears]

I think it's pointless: if you SFT even their closed source models on a specific enough task, the guardrails disappear.

AI "safety" is about making it so that a journalist can't get out a recipe for Tabun just by asking.

[MutedEstate45]

True, but there's still a meaningful difference in friction and scale. With closed APIs, OpenAI can monitor for misuse, throttle abuse and deploy countermeasures in real-time. With open weights, a single prompt jailbreak or exploit spreads instantly. No need for ML expertise, just a Reddit post.

The risk isn’t that bad actors suddenly become smarter. It’s that anyone can now run unmoderated inference and OpenAI loses all visibility into how the model’s being used or misused. I think that’s the control they’re grappling with under the label of safety.