4 ms·
We don't really know anything about the internal finances at this point. The product is solid but who knows how fucked up things are. Maybe they were on track t
by __loam 3y ago
We don't really know anything about the internal finances at this point. The product is solid but who knows how fucked up things are. Maybe they were on track to run out of money. GPU compute ain't cheap.
- crop_rotation 3y agoNone of that can be a reason for a step like this. OpenAI can easily charge much more for their products, and there is a market for even extremely high prices (even if not as big) and given this is a non profit, it doesn't even need to make billions of dollars in money.
- CrazyStat 3y agoOpenAI exists both as a nonprofit and, for several years now, as a for-profit company [1] that has taken billions of dollars in investment. It needs to make billions of dollars to return to investors just as much as any other for-profit company does. [1] https://openai.com/blog/openai-lp https://openai.com/blog/openai-lp
- crop_rotation 3y agoThe non profit is the majority owner of the for profit, and there is no investor pressure here to make billions.
- j45 3y agoCould that not change as the board changes?
- jprete 3y agoI think the board is required to be a majority non-equity-holders precisely because an equity-holding board will not keep to their non-profit mission.
- j45 3y agoSince it's a private non-profit corp it might be whatever they want the rules to be. Arms-length neutrality on a board in silicon valley might still work like the rest as other comments have stated. Maybe someone can shed some light on it
- jprete 3y agoI’m presuming it was put into place as part of creating the capped-for-profit entity, to make sure the for-profit couldn’t itself permanently misalign the non-profit’s board.