[richardbatty]

The Open Philanthropy Project uses the word 'Open' to mean (http://www.openphilanthropy.org/what-open-means-us):

"Open to many possibilities ... instead of starting with a predefined set of focus areas, we’re considering a wide variety of causes where our philanthropy could help to improve others’ lives." and "Open about our work ... Very often, key discussions and decisions happen behind closed doors, and it’s difficult for outsiders to learn from and critique philanthropists’ work. We envision a world in which philanthropists increasingly document and share their research, reasoning, results and mistakes to help each other learn more quickly and serve others more effectively."

This all seems pretty useful so I don't get what your criticism is.

[dilemma]

My criticism is that it isn't open, which is more or less absolute. Every organization is "a little" open, sharing the information that benefits them. And that seems to be what OpenAI intends to do: be open about that which suits them.