Do you really think anyone besides AI enthusiasts are paying attention? It's not like the general public is even aware of this, let alone following its progress.
Security disclosures are much simpler - we found a vulnerability and we will provide time for the company/team/organization to patch it before announcing it to the world so it won't be exploited by bad actors.
If OpenAI truly feels they have something akin to nuclear weaponry, and that fewer actors having it is better, than they have to openly admit that they consider themselves better gatekeepers of the technology than the public and back away even further from their non-profit/limited profit ideals. "We are creating this technology for the good of the world, but it's so good we are afraid to let you use it, so only we will benefit from it."
I find them wildly inconsistent in their messaging, trying to have the best of everything with none of the drawbacks.
It seems OpenAI wanted to release this project in phases, allowing people time to adjust to its nature. If in the future an even more disruptive project is created (by OpenAI or others), if the creator feels they cannot release it in their own perception of what a “safe” way is, they may simply avoid publishing and instead privately communicate with companies and powerful individuals. Which I don’t think is the outcome the author wants. So I hope he reconsiders here.