OpenAI Fires Three Safety Researchers

Zvi Mowshowitz collects statements from OpenAI and from three fired safety researchers, Tomek Korbak, Mikita Balesni and Jasmine Wang, who dispute the stated reason. Mowshowitz says the firings look bad, believes the researchers sincerely, and notes OpenAI cites an undisclosed further breach of trust.

Why it matters

The same thing, for different readers.

What it means for you

Staff at an AI company say they were dismissed after working with outside safety auditors; the company denies this and has not said what the further breach was.

For lawmakers

The dispute is cited as an argument for whistleblower protection and for clear rules on how company staff may work with external auditors.

For researchers

Outside evaluators depend on lab staff who can talk to them; this case may make such liaisons and monitorability work harder.

The question it raises

How much must a company explain when it ends the careers of people who warn about risk, and who should judge whether trust was truly broken?

In their own words

Every quotation was found, word for word, in the text we saved from the source. That shows the words are there; it does not make them true, or prove the speaker meant them as quoted.

From the source’s own text.

“I was told verbally I was fired because of the way I communicated with METR. No details on what I said or did or when. No other reasons were given and nothing was put in writing. To be clear, talking to METR was my job.”
Tomek Korbak, Fired OpenAI researcherKorbak's public post, reproduced by Mowshowitz, describing the reason given for the firing.
Found word for word in the source
“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. You can't build AGI safely if the people closest to the risks are afraid to speak.”
Jasmine Wang, Former safety researcher, OpenAIWang's public statement, reproduced by Mowshowitz, on what the firings signal to remaining staff.
Found word for word in the source
“If OpenAI wants to undo the damage and chilling effect, including at other labs, they have to convince their employees, and ideally everyone, that safety advocacy, both internal and external, had nothing to do with why these three employees were fired.”
Zvi MowshowitzMowshowitz's own argument about what OpenAI must show to repair trust.
Found word for word in the source
“I do not believe the fired employees are lying to us. I see no reason for them to be doing that, and if they are lying about the exit meetings then OpenAI has the ability to contradict this.”
Zvi MowshowitzMowshowitz's own judgment of the researchers' accounts of their exit meetings.
Found word for word in the source

The record

Questions
Are AI companies putting stronger safeguards into practice? · Who can demand evidence, delay a release or stop an unsafe deployment?
People
Zvi Mowshowitz (Wrote it) · Tomek Korbak (About them) · Mikita Balesni (About them) · Jasmine Wang (About them)
Also covered by
LessWrong
What we read
We read the whole source.
Found by
The Radar, run of October 13, 2026, via zvi-mowshowitz (tier 1: the source’s own channel or an official record)
Cite this
Don't Worry About the Vase (Zvi Mowshowitz), “OpenAI Fires Three Safety Researchers”, October 12, 2026. Entry in the Ctrl AI Base, https://ctrlai.com/base/zvi-2026-10-12-openai-fires-three-safety-researchers
Our notesMostly a compilation of others' statements (OpenAI Newsroom, WSJ, tweets); Mowshowitz also writes that OpenAI did not fire the three for safety advocacy, a view opposing most commenters. OpenAI's claim of a further breach of trust is unexplained. Source includes no instructions to an AI.