There's lots of concern about the bizarre relationship disclosure. But perhaps even more bizarre is that this deal has a structure closer to a strategic move th

There's lots of concern about the bizarre relationship disclosure. But perhaps even more bizarre is that this deal has a structure closer to a strategic move than actual philanthropy. Am I massively misreading this? This page details how their main goal with the $30M isn't to increase OpenAI's pledged funds by 3%, thereby reducing the marginal "AI Risk" by less than 3%. The goal is to have a seat on the board (basically -- they use a lot more words to say this in the announcement). What on earth is going on where a charitable organization with Open in its name feels it needs to buy its way onto the board of a prominent non-profit in order to: "Improve our understanding of the field of AI research" "[get] opportunities to become closely involved with any of the small number of existing organizations in “industry”" and "Better position us to generally promote the ideas and goals that we prioritize" Isn't the whole point of "open philanthropy" that you can direct funds to organizations more open about what's going on?!