you have the causality backwards: makers of open-source software are less abusive than makers of closed-source software not because open-source is such a good safeguard, but because the sorts of organizations that would be abusive don't open source in the first place.
Really? I just provided an example of a mechanism that helps keep open source software projects ethical - the fact that if the manufacturers attempt to exploit their customers it is much easier for the customers to switch to a more ethical fork - because creating such a fork no longer violates copyright law. Though you said you were pointing out problems with my reasoning, you didn't actually point out any problems with that reasoning.
We saw an example of this kind of thing very recently - with LibreOffice. The developers got afraid that their adopted custodian, Oracle, was going to screw the customers of their project - so, to protect their customers and themselves, they forked it - and went their own way.
if there is an unethical AI running somewhere, then forking the code will not save humanity. Forking is a defense against not having good software to use yourself; it is not a defense against other people running software that does bad things to you.
If other people are running software that does bad things to you then running good quality software yourself most certainly is a kind of defense. It means you are better able to construct defenses, better able to anticipate their attacks - and so on. Better brains makes you more powerful.
Compare with the closed-source alternative: If other people are running software that does bad things to you - and you have no way to run such software yourself - since it is on their server and running secret source that is also protected by copyright law - you are probably pretty screwed.
Ideally, I'd like to save the world. One way to do that involves contributing academic research, which raises the question of what's the most effective way of doing that.
The traditional wisdom says if you want to do research, you should get a job in a university. But for the most part the system seems to be set up so that you first spend a long time working for someone else and research their ideas, after which you can lead your own group, but then most of your time will be spent on applying for grants and other administrative trivia rather than actually researching the interesting stuff. Also, in Finland at least, all professors need to also spend time doing teaching, so that's another time sink.
I suspect I would have more time to actually dedicate on research, and I could get doing it quicker, if I took a part-time job and did the research in my spare time. E.g. the recommended rates for a freelance journalist in Finland would allow me to spend a week each month doing work and three weeks doing research, of course assuming that I can pull off the freelance journalism part.
What (dis)advantages does this have compared to the traditional model?
Some advantages:
Some disadvantages:
EDIT: Note that while I certainly do appreciate comments specific to my situation, I posted this over at LW and not Discussion because I was hoping the discussion would also be useful for others who might be considering an academic path. So feel free to also provide commentary that's US-specific, say.