It's ironic that they are attempting to open source a model from "OpenAI".
They spent a lot of money to find a lot of shallow gradients. Everyone else can climb those same gradients by putting in a little bit of money. Every single funded vertical and research org is proving this. Players in third place and below are incentivized to release their weights to develop an ecosystem around them. Meta and Tencent get to ensure the technology doesn't evolve beyond them by commoditizing their compliment and releasing stuff like Llama and Hunyuan for free.
Furthermore, OpenAI hasn't stumbled across a defensible moat. There's zero switching cost to move to another product, and they don't control any major panes of glass to stay as a default.
If OpenAI doesn't find a moat soon, they're gonna be cooked. The value of foundation models will plummet.
But also, if you want people to stop mocking "Open" AI, then maybe they should stop being such a mockable caricature of themselves.
Regarding the name, open is just a word. Apple doesn't sell apples. The company never promised to open source every model, only to make them accessible to the public, so you're arguing semantics that lead to no improvement in the technical conversation.
Perhaps we should just string-sub to IAnepO or some such, so we can engage with the models and company as it is, without dealing with the (empty) semantics of the name.