No disrespect to the author intended, but the above comment is muddled.
1. OpenAI, the organization, is not equivalent to its chat offering.
2. Saying "the" real risk isn't persuasive. Let's examine many risks before claiming one is the most significant. Also, "real" is this usage often a throwaway (i.e. unneeded) word, in editor speak.
3. Let's talk about OpenAI's "business model" (though such discussions are tricky).
3A. Originally, OpenAI wasn't trying to "hold onto" AI advancements. It claimed to be a broadly funded way to explore fundamental questions of artificial intelligence in a non-commercial, ethical way.
3B. Of course, the above claim was largely aspirational, because it wasn't baked into their DNA in way that could survive the surrounding temptations for more funding, glory, and resources.
3C. Even with their more commercialized model of the last several years, it seems their business model feels like (a) fundraise in exchange for (b) (claimed) collective good open source, tools and shared research.
3D. OpenAI feels to me more and more like a commercial research lab; there does seem to be a lot of commercial partnering with their funding organizations (e.g. Microsoft).
4. I doubt the leadership there views the current ChatGPT models as unchanging. I expect there is a considerable revenue stream around the space. OpenAI is well positioned to play the game several steps ahead of others.
I would frame the broader question this way: for many years, there has been a hunger for this deeper AI research, due not only to (i) the expertise and resources required, but also (ii) to this hope that there is an organization that can maybe keep it within human or ethical bounds.
Unfortunately, this amorphous hope doesn't seem to be matching the actual organizational incentives nor dynamics. It is also unclear how much demand the public in free market will have for nobler research.
My position on these kinds of things is simple: follow the money. If we want an accountable public interest, AI research laboratory it's going to have to be designed, funded, and overseen very differently.