By skyforbes Here’s the response that pisses me off the most:
The name OpenAI comes from an early philosophical stance: the founders wanted AI research—and especially its benefits—to be open, shared, and broadly accessible rather than locked away in a single company or government vault like some digital dragon hoarding compute-gold.
The “open” part originally reflected two big ideas:
1. Open benefits.
The goal was to steer artificial intelligence toward outcomes that help everyone, not just the people building it. Think of it less like “open-source everything” and more like “open the door for society to shape this technology, not be surprised by it.”
2. Open collaboration.
Early on, the organization shared research, ideas, and safety work widely in the belief that transparency creates healthier scientific ecosystems. Over time, as the models became more capable (and potentially dangerous when misused), openness shifted toward responsible openness—sharing when it’s safe.
Names tend to fossilize the ideals of the moment. “OpenAI” captures the initial aspiration: an AI lab built on openness of purpose, not secrecy of intent. These days, the conversation centers less on how many papers you publish and more on how you balance transparency with safety. That tension makes the name an interesting little time capsule of the lab’s origin philosophy.
If you’re curious, the history of the “open vs. closed” debate around advanced AI is one of the stranger philosophical tug-of-wars in modern tech.