I assume this is because OpenAI committed to do certain things if and when they build AGI.

AGI as defined narrowly by OpenAI, Microsoft et al for their contracts, not what scientists would define it as .

While I don’t think we are close to AGI, we also have to acknowledge that term is forever changing meaning and goal posts , even 10 years back a Turing test would be considered sufficient, obviously not anymore .

The scientific, public understanding is changing constantly and a court would have difficulty in making a decision if there is no consensus , it only has to see if the contractual definition has been met

I think OpenAI has been using the excuse that GPT-4 is not AGI, and therefore can remain closed-source.

Man is that a big juicy meatball if you're a judge, though. Who would not love to hear that case.