3 ms·
Interesting and insightful read - definitely seems like someone has been paying attention throughout. I can't get past this snippet: > they ultimately had no
by btbuildem 3y ago
Interesting and insightful read - definitely seems like someone has been paying attention throughout.
I can't get past this snippet:
> they ultimately had no leverage because they weren’t a for-profit company with the capital to be truly independent.
Maybe I don't understand non-profits, but.. they're allowed to amass a war chest for expansion and to pay for dependencies, right? They're not compelled by charter to have no capital like some sort of a corporate equivalent of a monk -- it's just OpenAI that did not have enough capital to grant them better negotiating terms. How is that different from any other startup that gives up ownership of its IP in exchange for investment?
- pgsandstrom 3y agoThis article read to me like someone tryint to shoehorn "non-profits sucks" into an otherwise interesting narrative.
- magarnicle 3y agoIn this case, I think it's "non-profits suck" for business analysts. How can you predict what those do-gooders will get up to if they sometimes refuse to make the numbers get bigger?
- asimovfan 3y agoI think this mainly means they dont pay out dividends to shareholders
- amadeuspagel 3y agoIt's different from other startups, because other startups can promise potentially infinite returns in exchange for investments, while Open AI had capped returns.
- btbuildem 3y agoThat sounds like the very likely most notable difference.