Sadly, cherished principles often perish on the horns of "But this time it's different."
> the "for profit" and "AI safety" explanations are not contradictory
Indeed, they can reinforce each other into a runaway feedback loop. Once you buy into an all-encompassing mission of preventing apocalypse, maintaining perspective or proportionality become almost impossible. The moral hazard of not pursuing almost all available measures justifies taking $10B of MSFT's money to fund the defense of humanity. Add to this the ego-stoking existential importance of such a "noble cause", the global media attention and the social elevation in the tight-knit, closed-circle of the AI Alignment community and you've got the perfect drug.
Given the intense forces shaping the worldview of the "AI Safety Noble Warriors", it's reasonable for outsiders to question their objectivity and appropriately discount claims of "we are keeping this from you for your own good."
I'm familiar with the "AI safety" movement. For years, many people from that camp are extremely critical of OpenAI and they genuinely believe OpenAI is unleashing something truly dangerous to humanity. One person I knew said that while free and open source is usually important, but due to the unique dangers of AI, it's better to keep AI tech stay in the hands of a small number of monopolists, similar to nuclear non-proliferation. Meanwhile, OpenAI was trying to promote openness - a terrible idea.
Thus, it's indeed a perfect explanation of OpenAI's decision to stop keeping its research in the open. Unfortunately, the problem here is that the "for profit" and "AI safety" explanations are not contradictory, they can simultaneously be true. Just like how Google began as a promoter of the open Web but gradually started to use its market position for its own gain. The same situation exists for OpenAI. "AI Safety" may be the initial motivation, but possibly not for long. After a while, "safety" may be nothing more than an excuse for profit.