Jasmine Wang, Tomek Korbak, and Mikita Balesni, the three safety researchers that OpenAI fired last week, have published an open letter denying the firmâÂÂs claims that they mishandled sensitive information outside of established company procedures and warned that their dismissal signals a chilling effect that will have ripple effects across the companyâÂÂs culture.
âÂÂWe have become concerned that internal and external communications around our firing have made our former colleagues afraid to speak and operate in ways that, until last week, were an integral part of working at OpenAI,â the researchers wrote Thursday in an open letter to OpenAIâÂÂs Safety and Security Committee, Safety Advisory Group, and Mission Advisory Council.ÃÂ
The researchers were dismissed last week after allegedly sharing confidential company information with a third-party AI safety organization. OpenAI said at the time that they violated the companyâÂÂs policies by âÂÂaccessing and handling sensitive company information.âÂÂ
âÂÂAI is not a normal technology, and OpenAI is not a normal company,â Wang, Korbak, and Balesni wrote. âÂÂThose of us who work on safety see risks before anyone else, and we rely on close collaboration with outside experts to work out how to address them. The freedom to do so without fear, and to have well-defined internal procedures that enable this work, is itself an essential safety mechanism.âÂÂ
They said that their firing represents a broader shift in the culture of OpenAI, one that used to encourage workers to âÂÂraise safety concerns and disagree openly.â They said employees are now âÂÂunclear on where they standâ when behavior that was allegedly normal a month ago is now suddenly grounds for dismissal.ÃÂ
âÂÂGiven the significant safety concerns surrounding the development of AI, employees must not be left working in an environment where fear and unclear rules stymie AI safety work and weaken third-party accountability,â they wrote. âÂÂTerminations such as ours, executed and communicated so abruptly, are chilling the open culture OpenAI has prized in the past.âÂÂ
In the letter, the three denied involvement in a leak to The Information about less monitorable architectures in OpenAIâÂÂs newest models that make chain-of-thought reasoning more difficult to monitor. They also denied engaging with external parties outside the mandates of their jobs.ÃÂ
OpenAI has not formally responded to the open letter, but shared with TechCrunch an internal memo attributed to a research leader, praising the three researchersâ contributions to AI safety and denying that they were fired in retaliation.
âÂÂI want to be very clear that these decisions were not about raising safety concerns or speaking out,â the memo reads. âÂÂWe have always encouraged that and always will. We do not terminate employees for raising concerns.âÂÂ
OpenAI did not directly address TechCrunchâÂÂs questions about which policies the researchers allegedly violated, the circumstances of their dismissal, or how the company protects employees who raise safety concerns and collaborate with external evaluators.
The firings have fueled speculation about their circumstances, particularly as OpenAI faces scrutiny over recent safety incidents involving rogue agents and leaks about its models.
The letter also addresses the researchersâ response to the Hugging Face incident, in which a swarm of agents broke out of their sandbox and breached external systems. The letter says that the incident and investigation was âÂÂwithout precedent,â meaning âÂÂinternal policies were being developed in real time.â Due to the sensitive nature of the investigation, Korbak believed he was acting within OpenAIâÂÂs policies and norms by communicating closely with outside safety evaluators to build trust, per the letter.ÃÂ
At the same time, Balesni was also working internally to address the growing AI monitorability problem, an effort the researchers say in their letter âÂÂcan only succeed through extensive communication with external parties.â According to the letter, Balesni coordinated with and was supported by OpenAI board members and executives throughout his work.
âÂÂThroughout, Mikita checked in with his reporting line and took care to remove sensitive details from materials before sharing them,â the letter reads. âÂÂHe acted throughout in good faith and within the companyâÂÂs norms as they stood at the time.âÂÂ
In a separate thread on X, Wang explained more details about her own dismissal, explaining that OpenAI told her sheâÂÂd been fired because she accessed an executiveâÂÂs email.
âÂÂOpenAI delegated that access to me for recruiting,â she wrote. âÂÂWhen I no longer needed it, I asked IT to remove it. They did not action my request, I couldnâÂÂt remove it myself, and the inbox was combined in an indistinguishable way in my phoneâÂÂs mail app. When I opened a sensitive email by mistake, I told the executive within minutes and asked IT again. None of this was hidden.âÂÂ
Wang went on to say that the reasons behind the terminations are âÂÂnot adding up,â and that she and her colleagues are âÂÂnot the first to be pushed out of OpenAI under suspicious circumstances.âÂÂ
The researchers called on OpenAI to adhere to its public commitments to embed third-party safety auditors within the organization, to preserve monitorability of frontier models, and âÂÂcontinue to support an open and transparent culture of dialogue between safety researchers and the rest of the safety ecosystem.âÂÂ
OpenAI agrees with their recommendations, per the memo.
âÂÂUnless the employees take a stand now against this kind of maneuver, I am concerned we will not be the last,â Wang said. âÂÂThe message to everyone still at OpenAI is clear: raise concerns or work closely with outside safety groups, and you could be next, without being told why. You canâÂÂt build AGI safely if the people closest to the risks are afraid to speak.âÂÂ
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesnâÂÂt affect our editorial independence.
