Korbak afirmou que vinha alertando internamente para uma perda de capacidade de supervisão sobre sistemas mais avançados. “Há meses eu vinha levantando preocupações de segurança de que estamos perdendo a capacidade de monitorar o que agentes de IA pensam, uma de nossas melhores ferramentas para detectar quando eles se comportam mal. Acredito que foi por isso que fui demitido”, escreveu ele no X.
Wang disse temer que novas saídas ocorram se a equipe não reagir ao que chamou de manobra contra funcionários. “Não fomos os primeiros a sair da OpenAI em circunstâncias suspeitas. A menos que os funcionários se posicionem agora contra esse tipo de manobra, temo que não seremos os últimos”, escreveu no X.
A OpenAI nega que as demissões tenham relação com críticas sobre segurança e afirma que houve quebra de confiança. “Queremos deixar muito claro que essas decisões não tiveram a ver com levantar preocupações de segurança ou se manifestar. Nossa investigação interna descobriu uma quebra significativa de confiança além do que está descrito na carta que eles publicaram e mantemos a decisão de não continuar o vínculo de trabalho”, disseram líderes de pesquisa da empresa em nota.
A note from our research leaders: Last week we parted ways with Jasmine, Mikita, and Tomek after a thorough investigation found they violated clear policies on handling sensitive information. Our internal investigation uncovered a significant breach of trust beyond what’s outlined in the letter they published and we stand by the decision to not continue their employment. We generally keep individual employment matters private and don’t believe a back and forth would be productive or lead to a resolution, but we want to address the points they raised in their letter directly. – We want to be very clear that these decisions were not about raising safety concerns or speaking out. Safety and research debates happen every day at OpenAI, often spirited and highly critical. We actively encourage these discussions and consider them essential to making the right decisions. We cannot do the work in front of us without a high degree of trust. We will continue to be extremely forgiving of our team making good-faith mistakes. We have not and do not terminate any of our employees for raising concerns. – We are actively finalizing contracts with third-party safety assessors and will announce details in the coming weeks. People across the company have been working really hard on getting these partnerships up and running. We are committed to embedding external assessors and continue to make close collaboration with independent safety organizations a core part of our safety work. Many of our researchers already work with 3p safety organizations productively. – We agree with the letter that preserving the monitorability of frontier models requires an industry-wide commitment, including from OpenAI. Monitorability has long been a core piece of our research program, and something we continue to invest significant resources in (see our publications on Monitoring Monitorability and the subsequent open sourcing of monitorability evals, our system card for GPT-6 Astra, Jakub’s blog and post on X, and the numerous blog posts on our Alignment blog on the topic). We are deeply sad about this outcome. We appreciated Jasmine, Mikita, and Tomek’s contributions to AI safety at OpenAI and their willingness to speak up and challenge ideas. We championed their voices, supported their work, and placed enormous trust in them. These decisions were not about them raising safety concerns. We have always encouraged that and always will.
— OpenAI Newsroom (@OpenAINewsroom) October 9, 2026
Debate sobre riscos da IA ganha peso
As demissões ocorrem em meio a uma discussão mais ampla sobre riscos de sistemas avançados de inteligência artificial e como eles devem ser avaliados. O caso também reacende o debate sobre espaço para dissenso interno em empresas que desenvolvem modelos de IA de ponta.