3 ms·

The real issue is that OpenAI is both a for profit and a non profit organization. This structure creates a very significant conflict of interest where maintaini

The real issue is that OpenAI is both a for profit and a non profit organization. This structure creates a very significant conflict of interest where maintaining balance between both of them is very tricky business. The non-profit board shouldn’t have been in charge of the for-profit aspect of the company.

naveen99 3y ago
Balance is irrelevant. It’s an accounting mechanism for irs rules.
cthalupa 3y ago
The for-profit would not exist if the non-profit was not able to maintain control. The only reason it does exist is because they were able to structure it in such a way that the for-profit is completely beholden to the non-profit. There is no requirement in the charter for the non-profit or the operating agreement of the for-profit to maintain a balance - it explicitly is the opposite of that. The operating agreement that all investors in and employees of the for-profit must sign explicitly states that investments should be considered donations, no profits are obligated to be made or returned to anyone, all money might be dumped into AGI R&D, etc. and that the for-profit is specifically beholden to the charter and mission of the non-profit. https://openai.com/our-structure https://openai.com/our-structure
- DebtDeflation 3y ago
  >The for-profit would not exist if the non-profit was not able to maintain control. The non-profit will not exist at all if Microsoft walks away and all the other investors follow Sam and Greg. Neither GPUs nor researchers are free.
  - cthalupa 3y ago
    The non-profit is legally obligated to follow their charter. If they truly believe that allowing Altman to remain CEO is a contraindication to that, then they have to fire him. They might not survive such a firing due to the fallout, but that doesn't matter - if one option is assured movement away from their charter and the other is potential destruction while still adhering to it, the latter is still the correct choice.

naveen99 3y ago

Balance is irrelevant. It’s an accounting mechanism for irs rules.

cthalupa 3y ago

The for-profit would not exist if the non-profit was not able to maintain control. The only reason it does exist is because they were able to structure it in such a way that the for-profit is completely beholden to the non-profit. There is no requirement in the charter for the non-profit or the operating agreement of the for-profit to maintain a balance - it explicitly is the opposite of that. The operating agreement that all investors in and employees of the for-profit must sign explicitly states that investments should be considered donations, no profits are obligated to be made or returned to anyone, all money might be dumped into AGI R&D, etc. and that the for-profit is specifically beholden to the charter and mission of the non-profit. https://openai.com/our-structure https://openai.com/our-structure

DebtDeflation 3y ago
>The for-profit would not exist if the non-profit was not able to maintain control. The non-profit will not exist at all if Microsoft walks away and all the other investors follow Sam and Greg. Neither GPUs nor researchers are free.
- cthalupa 3y ago
  The non-profit is legally obligated to follow their charter. If they truly believe that allowing Altman to remain CEO is a contraindication to that, then they have to fire him. They might not survive such a firing due to the fallout, but that doesn't matter - if one option is assured movement away from their charter and the other is potential destruction while still adhering to it, the latter is still the correct choice.