I know you are being sarcastic, but I don't know if everyone understands Sam Altman's motivation for running OpenAI the way it's being run. Sam is trying to create AI which causes the greatest benefit for humanity. That's openAI's mission. Open sourcing everything now would not achieve the mission.
In case the "why" is not obvious: AI progress is limited by a) great research talent; b) money -- specifically being able to invest in compute. If OpenAI were to open source everything, they would not be able to raise the money they need to invest in compute, which would cause a death spiral in their ability to attract and retain their researchers. They need to have a story for why they will make money in the short term to continue being a top tier AI research org. And since AI is "winner take all", it is likely worse for the world if a less altruistic company takes all the talent and source code.
If your point is just that OpenAI is a misnomer now, I agree :). It's not open. But I do think they have settled on a surprisingly good point in solution space (the capped-profit company, the charter, etc); I don't see ways to validly criticize the company from an altruism perspective.
AI progress is not limited at all, it's the fastest moving research field in the world (5x improvement in efficiency / year for training a task to the same precision for the same cost if I recall correctly, far better than Moore's law).
OpenAI is opening the world to AI and helping people just like Google's doing ,,no evil'', Facebook is connecting people. At the point when an organization gets big enough to not keep its original values (being open for OpenAI), it's not better (less altruistic) in ,,making the world a better place'' than any other organization. Competition and having the power of AI distributed in more companies is good though (until they acquire each other).
