Leaked exchanges show OpenAI leadership felt "betrayed" when early investor Reid Hoffman started rival Inflection AI. This prompted them to consider asking new investors for a "soft promise" not to fund competitors, a highly unusual and restrictive term in venture capital.
OpenAI embraces the 'platform paradox' by selling API access to startups that compete directly with its own apps like ChatGPT. The strategy is to foster a broad ecosystem, believing that enabling competitors is necessary to avoid losing the platform race entirely.
Investments in OpenAI from giants like Amazon and Microsoft are strategic moves to embed the AI leader within their ecosystems. This is evidenced by deals requiring OpenAI to use the investors' proprietary processors and cloud infrastructure, securing technological dependency.
Testimony from OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever has revealed that during the 2023 leadership crisis, a merger with top rival Anthropic was actively discussed. The potential deal, which could have installed Anthropic's CEO at the helm, highlights the deep instability at OpenAI during that period.
OpenAI previously had highly restrictive exit agreements that could claw back an employee's vested equity if they refused to sign a non-disparagement clause. This practice highlights how companies can use financial leverage to silence former employees, a tactic that became particularly significant during the CEO ousting controversy.
Startups are becoming wary of building on OpenAI's platform due to the significant risk of OpenAI launching competing applications (e.g., Sora for video), rendering their products obsolete. This "platform risk" is pushing developers toward neutral providers like Anthropic or open-source models to protect their businesses.
The choice between open and closed-source AI is not just technical but strategic. For startups, feeding proprietary data to a closed-source provider like OpenAI, which competes across many verticals, creates long-term risk. Open-source models offer "strategic autonomy" and prevent dependency on a potential future rival.
The "golden era" of big tech AI labs publishing open research is over. As firms realize the immense value of their proprietary models and talent, they are becoming as secretive as trading firms. The culture is shifting toward protecting IP, with top AI researchers even discussing non-competes, once a hallmark of finance.
A significant number of leading AI companies, such as Anthropic and XAI, were founded by executives who left larger players like OpenAI out of disagreement or rivalry. This "spite" acts as a powerful motivator, driving the creation of formidable competitors and shaping the industry's landscape.
Despite its early dominance, OpenAI's internal "Code Red" in response to competitors like Google's Gemini and Anthropic demonstrates a critical business lesson. An early market lead is not a guarantee of long-term success, especially in a rapidly evolving field like artificial intelligence.
A growing movement in the startup community involves not using OpenAI's API. Founders fear OpenAI, in its push for revenue, will release services that directly compete with and kill startups built on its platform, similar to Microsoft's historical "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy.