OpenAI’s Selective Generosity
In 2026, after publicly criticizing Anthropic for restricting access to its AI model Mythos, OpenAI decided to do the exact same thing. This isn’t a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention to the AI space. The company announced it would roll out GPT-5.5 Cyber, its cybersecurity AI model, exclusively to “critical cyber defenders.”
Let’s rewind a bit. Anthropic introduced Mythos, a powerful AI model. The catch? They kept it under wraps, making it available only to a select group. OpenAI, through its various channels, made it clear they disapproved of this approach, arguing for broader access and the benefits of wider deployment. Fast forward to April 30, 2026, and we see OpenAI performing an identical maneuver with GPT-5.5 Cyber.
The Double Standard is Glaring
Sam Altman stated on X that GPT-5.5 Cyber would be distributed to “critical cyber defenders” in the coming days. This is the same language, the same exclusive club mentality, that OpenAI previously critiqued Anthropic for adopting. It’s almost as if they were waiting for their turn to pull the same stunt. This isn’t about protecting users; it’s about controlling access to powerful tools.
The justification will undoubtedly be “safety” or “responsible deployment.” These are the buzzwords AI companies use when they want to limit who gets to play with their toys. When Anthropic restricted Mythos, the concern was, supposedly, about stifling progress and limiting the potential good that could come from wider use. Now, with GPT-5.5 Cyber, the narrative shifts to safeguarding against misuse, even though the tool is specifically for defense.
Who are “Critical Cyber Defenders” Anyway?
This vague designation of “critical cyber defenders” is another point of contention. Who decides who fits this description? Governments? Large corporations? OpenAI itself? This kind of gatekeeping creates an elite tier of AI users, reinforcing the idea that advanced AI is not for everyone. It also raises questions about transparency. How are these defenders vetted? What criteria are being used? We don’t know, and OpenAI isn’t exactly rushing to provide details.
The issue isn’t necessarily that a powerful cybersecurity AI *shouldn’t* be deployed carefully. The issue is the blatant hypocrisy. To publicly scold a competitor for a practice, only to adopt that exact practice yourself a short time later, speaks volumes about the priorities at play. It suggests that the criticism wasn’t about the principle of access itself, but about who was doing the restricting.
What Does This Mean for the AI Space?
This incident sets a concerning precedent. It signals that companies in the AI space are willing to criticize their rivals for actions they themselves are prepared to take. It fosters an environment of distrust and self-interest rather than collaborative development. If every major AI player decides to hoard its most potent models for “critical” users, the dream of democratized AI tools quickly fades.
For those of us tracking AI development, this move by OpenAI isn’t surprising, but it is disappointing. It shows that even the companies that preach openness and accessibility are quick to backtrack when it suits their strategic interests. GPT-5.5 Cyber might be a powerful tool, but its restricted release, especially after OpenAI’s prior stance, makes it look less like a defensive measure and more like a power play. The industry needs more consistency and less selective outrage.
🕒 Published: