(2) OpenAI and its principals (particular Altman) deliberately and excessively works to promote AI-safety-related fears, but OpenAI is increasingly opaque about what it is doing about AI-safety (notionally, ironically, as a safety measure) – angers both everyone who thinks that the specific AI-safety concerns OpenAI is pushing are bunk and detrimental to useful progress and/or distracting from the real and significant concerns that should be addressed with AI and everyone who has AI-safety concerns (whether the same as OpenAI’s or different) and sees transparency and verifiability as important to confidence that those are being addressed (these are different, but overlapping, groups; it particularly angers people in the overlap, like the people centered on “AI ethics”.)
(3) Generalized anger at the actual and perceived near-future likely disruptions of AI, with OpenAI as a highly visible figure profiting from those disruptions.
(2) This isn't unprecedented, see fairness doctrine[1].
(3) The beneficiaries of which are the ones that have the largest most brittle tech stacks, short-term.
If AI is nothing more than if...else statements then you could argue it has disrupted tech from much farther back. Many AI systems are dressed up as 'AI' and 'The Future' when it's just a bunch of logic gates and code. The only really innovation being the training data is more sufficient because of the flood of user-generated content on the web, which has only recently been weaponized.