No legal need for such specific firing reasons — 'safety-washing' theory argued
KelseyTuoc · x · 2026-10-09
Replying to Kelsey Piper, panickssery concedes OpenAI's firing reasons may be pretextual but questions why it gave such specific ones — there's no legal need, and companies normally don't. He stresses there's no evidence for the popular narrative that safety staff were fired for finding/doing something pro-safety.
He sketches what he sees as the desired narrative: OpenAI grants safety staff apparent latitude (e.g. working with METR) with an implicit understanding they stay mealy-mouthed — or get fired. That enables 'safety-washing': claiming openness while not actually being open. This is the most substantive post in the exchange.
Related event: OpenAI Fires Safety Researchers, Sparking Debate Over Internal Checks(15 posts)→
More from Companies & People
- 'Did not age well': old 'I'm allowed to criticize OpenAI' post resurfaces as drama — dhadfieldmenell · 2026-10-09
- Alex Karp on Palantir's talent philosophy: 17 years mocked, but 'they have the best people' — eliano · 2026-10-09
- Claim that "Gemini is just an agent harness adding Claude models" called out as misleading — prajdabre · 2026-10-09
- xAI's Android App Undergoing Full Rewrite, Reply Bug Fix Ships Same Day — AndrewCurran_ · 2026-10-09
- AI writer yourgirlhils joins Anthropic to lead its AI Fluency effort — round · 2026-10-09
- Critics mock Anthropic for pushing Claude consciousness to justify regulation — AlexTensor · 2026-10-09