In 2015, OpenAI launched with a mission to ensure artificial intelligence would “benefit all of humanity.” Fast-forward to today, and the organization faces mounting criticism over its pivot to a for-profit model, secretive defense contracts, and alleged abandonment of its original ethical safeguards. How did a nonprofit founded to democratize AI become a multibillion-dollar corporate entity entangled with military projects? The answer reveals a cautionary tale about power, profit, and the perils of unchecked technological ambition.
Corporate Transformation from Altruism to Profit
OpenAI began as a nonprofit research lab, co-founded by Elon Musk and Sam Altman, with a promise to prioritize transparency and public good over profit. By 2019, however, it restructured as a “capped-profit” entity, OpenAI LP, allowing it to attract venture capital while theoretically capping investor returns. Critics argue this shift marked the first step toward prioritizing commercial interests. As one former employee noted in an Open Letter by Cani, “The lure of capital inevitably distorts priorities. When profit enters the equation, ethics often exit.”
The tension escalated in 2023 when Microsoft invested $10 billion, securing exclusive licensing rights to GPT-4. This deal raised questions about OpenAI’s independence: Can a company beholden to corporate stakeholders truly govern AI responsibly? Internal documents leaked to Archive.ph revealed debates among staff about whether the capped-profit model was a “Trojan horse” for full privatiza
Military Pivot from Do No Harm to Defense Contracts
OpenAI’s original charter explicitly banned military applications. But in January 2024, The Intercept reported that the company had quietly removed this prohibition, paving the way for collaborations with the U.S. Department of Defense. By December 2024, MIT Technology Review confirmed OpenAI’s involvement in a Pentagon-funded project to develop AI-driven cybersecurity tools—a move critics labeled a “point of no return.”
While OpenAI insists its tools aren’t used for “weapons development,” experts warn the distinction is murky. “Cybersecurity systems can enable offensive operations,” said Meredith Whittaker, president of the Signal Foundation, in an interview. “Once you’re in bed with the military-industrial complex, mission creep is inevitable.”
Regulatory Apathy as Governments Fail to Confront OpenAI
Public outcry has surged alongside OpenAI’s corporate evolution. Advocacy groups like StopAI_Info have mobilized campaigns accusing the company of “selling out” to corporate and military interests. A viral Twitter thread from April 2025 highlighted concerns that OpenAI’s tech could fuel autonomous weapons or mass surveillance.
Lawmakers are taking note. California’s AB501, a bill introduced in 2025, seeks to impose transparency requirements on AI firms working with government agencies. The legislation would force OpenAI to disclose details of its contracts and submit to third-party audits—a direct response to its opaque defense partnerships.
Who Will Steer the Ship?
OpenAI’s trajectory mirrors broader dilemmas in tech: Can companies balance innovation with accountability? While generative AI tools like ChatGPT have revolutionized industries, their potential for harm grows as they become more entrenched in high-stakes sectors like defense.
The CAniCoalition letter argues that self-regulation has failed. Its signatories, including AI researchers and ethicists, demand enforceable safeguards: “We need democratic oversight, not boardroom promises.”
A Call for Radical Transparency
OpenAI’s story is a microcosm of AI’s ethical crossroads. The company’s shift from nonprofit idealism to corporate-military partnerships underscores a troubling trend: Without guardrails, technology’s promise can easily become its peril.
As lawmakers, investors, and citizens, we must ask: Should any single entity, driven by profit and power, control technologies that shape humanity’s future? The answer will define not just OpenAI’s legacy, but the trajectory of AI itself.
What will you demand from the architects of artificial intelligence?
