Snowden: "They've gone full mask-off: do not ever trust OpenAI or its products"

Overall reaction to OpenAI and the board move

• Many commenters say they already distrusted OpenAI; the board appointment of a former intelligence/NSA chief simply confirms their view.
• Some want broad social condemnation of OpenAI and “big tech” generally, hoping for mass boycotts.
• Others argue OpenAI was never a “scrappy indie” but a textbook big‑tech, hype‑driven, profit‑maximizing company, so the move isn’t a moral turning point so much as continuity.

Motives and implications of adding an ex‑NSA leader

• Supportive/neutral view:
  • Common corporate tactic to add politically connected defense/intel figures to ease regulation, reassure government that products won’t threaten national security, and open doors to government/defense contracts.
  • Could help prevent uninformed, heavy‑handed regulation and strengthen cybersecurity and counter‑disinformation efforts.
• Critical view:
  • Seen as deepening entanglement with the surveillance state and a likely precursor to closer data sharing or analytic support for intelligence agencies.
  • Optics compared to Theranos bringing in retired generals—board as rubber stamp and access vehicle, not real oversight.
  • Some fear OpenAI outputs and logs becoming part of broader mass‑surveillance systems.

Trust, surveillance, and user options

• Many express strong distrust of OpenAI products, viewing them as part of a “panopticon” where opting out is practically impossible.
• Some suggest practical resistance: buy GPUs, run open‑source models (e.g., Llama 3 and other open LLMs), cancel OpenAI accounts, and avoid feeding proprietary systems with data.
• Others argue running your own models is too costly or inferior in quality, and that average users won’t follow this path.
• There is interest in anonymous or privacy‑preserving access (VPNs, intermediaries, DuckDuckGo’s AI chat), though limits and true anonymity are questioned.

Debate over the whistleblower’s warnings

• Some think the “betrayal of the rights of every person on Earth” framing is exaggerated or alarmist, and note a pattern of hyperbolic rhetoric.
• Others say his past disclosures have generally held up, argue his experience gives him special insight into intelligence–corporate entanglement, and see under‑reaction as the bigger risk.
• There is a side debate over whether his life choices (including asylum and citizenship abroad) compromise his independence or simply reflect the cost of whistleblowing.

Regulation, perception of AI, and big‑tech power

• Commenters note that perceptions of AI’s potential—more than current reality—are driving:
  • Attempts to weaken copyright and privacy norms for training data.
  • Corporate arguments that AI’s importance justifies bypassing GDPR‑style consent.
  • Pushes for “safety” regulation that could amount to regulatory capture by large players.
• Some blame OpenAI specifically for hyping existential danger to shape regulations in its favor, then hiring politically powerful figures to navigate the resulting landscape.

Downstream concerns: platforms and society

• Apple’s decision to integrate OpenAI into its ecosystem is seen by some as more troubling in light of the board move, though others stress Apple could later swap models or offer user choice.
• There is sustained worry about:
  • Generative AI as an amplifier for disinformation and election meddling.
  • AI assistants as highly persuasive, opaque “yes‑men” that shape beliefs without transparent sources.
  • The cumulative impact of feeding ever more personal data into systems whose long‑term use is unknown.