![](\"https:\/\/fortune.com\/img-assets\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/GettyImages-2281249262-e1791564726634.jpg?w=2048\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
A debate is playing out on social media, and inside the walls of OpenAI, about why the company fired three individuals last week on its safety team. Now, the former employees, as well as OpenAI, have issued additional statements to clarify their sides of the story. <\/p>\n
Two of the fired researchers\u2014Tomek Korbak and Mikita Balesni\u2014worked on OpenAI\u2019s investigation of the Hugging Face incident. Korbak was the technical point of contact for METR, the third-party research firm that OpenAI asked to conduct an independent audit of the incident. The third dismissed employee, Jasmine Wang, was a program manager on OpenAI\u2019s safety team.<\/p>\n
The Wall Street Journal first reported the dismissals on Oct. 1. At that time, OpenAI said the \u201cindividuals mishandled sensitive information outside established company procedures, violating our policies and breaking the trust essential to our work.\u201d<\/p>\n
Fired employees publish a letter responding to the allegations<\/p>\n
Since then, there appears to have been continued conversation and controversy among the ranks at OpenAI, prompting the three former employees to co-author a four-page letter, published on Oct. 8.<\/p>\n
The letter responds to \u201cvarious versions of events circulating\u201d among OpenAI staffers, and refers to ongoing \u201cinternal and external communications\u201d about the firing that the former employees say is making current employees \u201cafraid to speak\u201d up.<\/p>\n
\u201cTerminations such as ours, executed and communicated so abruptly, are chilling the open culture OpenAI has prized in the past,\u201d the letter says. \u201cIt is that culture we are writing to defend.\u201d<\/p>\n
The two biggest themes in the letter are about OpenAI\u2019s ability to monitor its advanced models, and about its engagement with third party safety companies, such as METR. The former employees deny they leaked concerns about the ability to monitor OpenAI\u2019s latest Astra model to The Information, which published a Sept. 1 article about it. Second, they deny any foul play in their communication with METR. The staffers urge OpenAI to preserve the ability to closely monitor its advanced models, to adhere to its commitment to embed third-party safety auditors within the organization, and to foster an open and transparent culture.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are concerned that our firings may be used to justify ending OpenAI\u2019s work with METR, or otherwise providing external auditors much more limited access and scope,\u201d the letter says.<\/p>\n
Varying accounts of reasons for the firing, but nothing concrete<\/p>\n
OpenAI has not disclosed the specific reasons for the firing, but told Fortune it found a pattern of misconduct from the three employees, including a number of violations, which clearly violated its policies for handling information. It did not link the firings to its communication with METR, or the Hugging Face incident.<\/p>\n
Each former employee gave their own brief explanation this week in social media posts that link to the joint letter.<\/p>\n
Korbak said OpenAI told him verbally, not in writing, that he \u201cwas fired because of the way I communicated with METR. \u201cLast week I was called into a meeting with OpenAI\u2019s head of safety and told they no longer trust me. A security guard took my badge and walked me out of the building,\u201d Korbak said. \u201cTalking to METR was my job.\u201d<\/p>\n
Wang said the reason OpenAI gave her was that she accessed an unnamed executive\u2019s email. She said the company gave her that access for recruiting, and when she no longer needed it, she asked IT to remove it, but they did not complete her request.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe were not the first to be pushed out of OpenAI under suspicious circumstances,\u201d Wang said. \u201cUnless the employees take a stand now against this kind of maneuver, I am concerned we will not be the last. The 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Balesni said they \u201cwere fired for prioritizing safety over the near-term interests of OpenAI as a corporation.\u201d<\/p>\n
Does OpenAI have an unhealthy safety culture?<\/p>\n
In response to the letter, OpenAI sent an internal memo to employees, as well as put out a public statement. \u201cOur internal investigation uncovered a significant breach of trust beyond what\u2019s outlined in the letter they published and we stand by the decision to not continue their employment,\u201d the company said. <\/p>\n
But lack of clarity about what exactly the employees did, or may have shared with METR, has fueled speculation about what happened. (METR did not respond to our request for comment.)<\/p>\n
\u201cI can\u2019t really see a world where OpenAI\u2019s actions are justified here,\u201d said Neel Nanda, a Google DeepMind employee who was formerly at Anthropic. \u201cFiring people over a good faith attempt to use their best judgement in a novel and uncertain situation is a sign of a highly unhealthy culture.\u201d<\/p>\n
Former OpenAI safety transparency lead David Robinson also spoke out this month about the company\u2019s \u201cbroken\u201d safety culture in an op-ed in The Atlantic, saying the company is not being \u201cnearly safe enough\u201d and relying on \u201ctrial and error.\u201d He highlights the Hugging Face incident as evidence of this, and that the safeguards the company put in place in response still didn\u2019t prevent more rogue incidents.<\/p>\n
OpenAI shared a portion of its internal memo to employees, sent by its research leaders with Fortune\u2014presumably penned by Mark Chen, Chief Research Officer, though the company did not specify. The memo affirmed the company\u2019s commitment to working with third party safety assessors, and said \u201cmonitorability is of the utmost importance to us.\u201d <\/p>\n
\u201cI cherish our open culture of debate, especially when it comes to safety, and consider this openness critically important to making the right decisions,\u201d the memo said. \u201d I want to be very clear that these decisions were not about raising safety concerns or speaking out. We have always encouraged that and always will.\u201d<\/p>\n
OpenAI said it is still committed to working with third party safety assessors, and is finalizing contracts now that it will announce \u201cin the coming weeks.\u201d <\/p>\n
#Controversy #swirls #OpenAI #firing #safety #team #members #Hugging #Face #investigation<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A debate is playing out on social media, and inside the walls of OpenAI, about…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[245],"tags":[14541,3182,8591,17658,3765,1908,406,214,14542,1711],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17908"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17908"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17908\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17908"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17908"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17908"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}