There is always the meta approaches. Imagine that the malicious actor is a government to which OpenAI must comply with its orders, like US for starters. We know

There is always the meta approaches. Imagine that the malicious actor is a government to which OpenAI must comply with its orders, like US for starters. We know since Snowden that can be secret orders that companies must comply with that includes not disclosing that it is happening. And that orders includes to select what can be part of its AI training, taking out information, changing weights, changing positives into negatives and viceversa, etc, adding intentional bias to the training data, to follow their current agenda, propaganda or commercial interests. And we can do a double-meta one too. What if the malicious actor is OpenAI itself, fueling a scare agenda over "uncontrolled" AIs to hamper or criminalize unauthorized AI development, giving only to selected partners (complying with a set of conditions) the ability to build new ones, or limit how far can go the public ChatGPT instances while giving the most advanced ones to selected government or big economic players. Hey, this very challenge could be the spark they are searching for to initiate that approach. Good (and bad) conspiracy theories could work in this arena, too bad it is not the kind of ideas they are searching for.