8 ms·

From the original article linked to by this CNBC story: > Altman also made an unusual decision for a tech boss: He would take no equity in the new for-profit e

From the original article linked to by this CNBC story: > Altman also made an unusual decision for a tech boss: He would take no equity in the new for-profit entity, according to people familiar with the matter. Altman was already extremely wealthy, investing in several wildly successful tech startups, and didn’t need the money. > He also believed the company needed to become a business to continue its work, but he told people the project was not designed to make money. Eschewing any ownership interest would help him stay aligned with the original mission. https://www.semafor.com/article/03/24/2023/the-secret-history-of-elon-musk-sam-altman-and-openai https://www.semafor.com/article/03/24/2023/the-secret-histor...

slantedview 4y ago
"Eschewing any ownership interest would help him stay aligned with the original mission." Is this a nice acknowledgement that the capitalist drive for profit can produce bad outcomes, which Altman wanted to avoid?
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
Do we know if Altman continues to have no equity in OpenAI?
- danso 4y ago
  The article re-asserts that he still has no equity in its closing paragraphs: > For Altman, it’s not about money, either. One of the most surprising things in all of this is that he does not own even a tiny piece of OpenAI, which highlights the unusual nature of this company and the entire AI industry.
  - theGnuMe 4y ago
    What about options? He might own options.
    - nprateem 4y ago
      Or be able to negotiate a management carve out
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Do we know if Altman continues to have no equity in OpenAI? Even if he doesn’t, he might in one of OpenAI, LPs, business partners / investors that is benefitting from the work, like Microsoft. Which would provide just the right distance for plausible deniability of a personal profit motive while very much having a personal profit motive.
drclau 4y ago
As I understand, OpenAI started as a non-profit entity and has taken on large donations. Then, the for-profit entity has been created and is using the technology developed by the non-profit entity, which was developed presumably by using the donated funds. So, maybe it's not about altruism at all, but instead Sam Altman is just protecting himself against potential lawsuits from the donors? There was probably some agreement on how the technology will be used. Elon Musk has donated $100M USD, and does not look happy about the developments, based on his tweets.
- tashoecraft 4y ago
  Elon tried to buy the company and become CEO and OpenAI said no. I also heard that they knew they were going to burn through the 100M, and were counting on the 1B he promised, and couldn't raise enough money as a non profit so that's why they went for profit.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Happy accidents.
  - pffft8888 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - lesuorac 4y ago
      Uh, so I can donate $5 to OpenAi and if they don't use it well (as defined by me) they should be forced to sell to me? Idk, it seems to me like if you donate money you should be ok with the organization spending it as they see best for their purposes. Sure perhaps some fraud rules if the organization claims to be helping earthquake victims and instead spends it on private yachts for the deaf but I don't think their mismanagement means they're forced to sell the organization. If you want an organization to do exactly as you want, create it yourself. Co-opting an existing one should be reserved for when there isn't an alternative.
      - 4y ago
shrimpx 4y ago
This is like Charlie Lee selling all his litecoins. Divesting from the project in order to prove that he's not after enriching himself. But the idea landed really poorly with people who assume a leader is more motivated when personal wealth is at stake.
harisec 4y ago
Buried in the article is this gem: "The latest language model, GPT-4, has 1 trillion parameters." - have no idea if it's true or not.

slantedview 4y ago

"Eschewing any ownership interest would help him stay aligned with the original mission." Is this a nice acknowledgement that the capitalist drive for profit can produce bad outcomes, which Altman wanted to avoid?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

Do we know if Altman continues to have no equity in OpenAI?

danso 4y ago
The article re-asserts that he still has no equity in its closing paragraphs: > For Altman, it’s not about money, either. One of the most surprising things in all of this is that he does not own even a tiny piece of OpenAI, which highlights the unusual nature of this company and the entire AI industry.
- theGnuMe 4y ago
  What about options? He might own options.
  - nprateem 4y ago
    Or be able to negotiate a management carve out
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Do we know if Altman continues to have no equity in OpenAI? Even if he doesn’t, he might in one of OpenAI, LPs, business partners / investors that is benefitting from the work, like Microsoft. Which would provide just the right distance for plausible deniability of a personal profit motive while very much having a personal profit motive.

drclau 4y ago

As I understand, OpenAI started as a non-profit entity and has taken on large donations. Then, the for-profit entity has been created and is using the technology developed by the non-profit entity, which was developed presumably by using the donated funds. So, maybe it's not about altruism at all, but instead Sam Altman is just protecting himself against potential lawsuits from the donors? There was probably some agreement on how the technology will be used. Elon Musk has donated $100M USD, and does not look happy about the developments, based on his tweets.

tashoecraft 4y ago
Elon tried to buy the company and become CEO and OpenAI said no. I also heard that they knew they were going to burn through the 100M, and were counting on the 1B he promised, and couldn't raise enough money as a non profit so that's why they went for profit.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Happy accidents.
- pffft8888 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    Uh, so I can donate $5 to OpenAi and if they don't use it well (as defined by me) they should be forced to sell to me? Idk, it seems to me like if you donate money you should be ok with the organization spending it as they see best for their purposes. Sure perhaps some fraud rules if the organization claims to be helping earthquake victims and instead spends it on private yachts for the deaf but I don't think their mismanagement means they're forced to sell the organization. If you want an organization to do exactly as you want, create it yourself. Co-opting an existing one should be reserved for when there isn't an alternative.
    - 4y ago

shrimpx 4y ago

This is like Charlie Lee selling all his litecoins. Divesting from the project in order to prove that he's not after enriching himself. But the idea landed really poorly with people who assume a leader is more motivated when personal wealth is at stake.

harisec 4y ago

Buried in the article is this gem: "The latest language model, GPT-4, has 1 trillion parameters." - have no idea if it's true or not.