[sigmoid10]

Huh. Yesterday they said:

>API deployments require different safeguards and we are working closely with partners and customers on the safety and security requirements for serving it at scale.

And now this. I guess one day counts as "very soon." But I wonder what that meant for these safeguards and security requirements.

[FINDarkside]

When stuff is delayed due to "safeguards" it just means they don't think they have the compute to release it right now.

[simonw]

I wonder if the fact that GPT-5.5 was already available in their Codex-specific API which they had explicitly told people they were allowed to use for other purposes - https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/23/gpt-5-5/#the-openclaw-... - accelerated this release!

[embedding-shape]

The same person who've mercilessly lied about safety is still running the company, so not sure why anyone would expect any different from them moving forward. Previous example:

> In 2023, the company was preparing to release its GPT-4 Turbo model. As Sutskever details in the memos, Altman apparently told Murati that the model didn’t need safety approval, citing the company’s general counsel, Jason Kwon. But when she asked Kwon, over Slack, he replied, “ugh . . . confused where sam got that impression.”

Lots of cases where Altman hass not been entirely forthcoming about how important (or not) safety is for OpenAI. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may... (https://archive.is/a2vqW)