> That means using clear, objective criteria and methods.

For the record, I sent them an LGPD (brazilian GDPR) request for information on all of those supposedly objective criteria and methods they used to reject me from TAC. As a brazilian data subject, it is my right to know that, and to request a review if the decision was made via automated means. Sol itself guided me through this process.

They provided me with neither the information nor the requested review. Sol advised me to escalate to regulatory action.

▲

glub 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I've exhausted all possible avenues to get any response from OpenAI on this. Emailed them, published research that took me 2 nights to get together (saw media pick it up too), I've asked every relevant OpenAI person on X to say something, anything, saw others from Moldova also do the same.

Crickets. They appear to simply not care at all.

▲

nradov 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Is there any reason why OpenAI should care? If they don't want your business then someone in your country can build a competing model.

▲

glub 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They do want my business, it's an official OpenAI market. The gate isn't "we don't serve you", it's "pay for the model that may target you, but not for defensive purposes". And without a single policy document stating this, it's just a surprise gate in some random verification flow step with no explanation or appeals.

As for why they should they care, maybe they shouldn't. But then they should say which one is it, they can't care and not care at the same time.

OpenAI's own safety argument for Daybreak is that defenders need access to Critical-level models because attackers route around gates. The case for releasing Astra at all stops making sense when the gate does precisely the opposite of that.

OpenAI itself is saying plainly, that "We don’t think it’s practical or appropriate to centrally decide who gets to defend themselves. Instead, we aim to enable as many legitimate defenders as possible, with access grounded in verification, trust signals, and accountability.".

And yes, there are competing models, from China. Except OpenAI wants these models to not be accessible either.

OpenAI can pick one of two:

(a) Critical-level cyber capability is dangerous enough that access must be decided by who you are and what you do, in which case the gate has to actually look at who I am and what I do, say what the criteria are, and let me contest a wrong answer. That's their own stated policy.

(b) Access can be decided by a country code in a random dropdown, with no criteria published, no review, and no one at OpenAI able to say why - in which case drop "democratized access" and "clear, objective criteria" from the marketing, and say plainly that some passport holders don't deserve to have access to defensive capabilities.

They're now marketing a and doing b.

▲

matheusmoreira 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The reason is they keep making public statements like:

> OpenAI is committed to ensuring that the benefits of AI are broadly accessible.

They can't claim that then simultaneously work to keep their cybersecurity models out of reach for non-US citizens like myself.

▲

cubefox 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They realistically can't. It's almost impossible to catch up to OpenAI. Only Anthropic might do it, but this is also an US American company.

▲

nradov 6 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not unrealistic. Several Chinese companies seem to be close behind. People thought they would never catch up to the US car industry and now look what happened.

	▲	gmueckl 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Frankly, the US car industry hasn't set the bar very high. They were not very innovative in the last couple of decades. I think the European industry is a better benchmark, and even then the result is pretty clear.