3 ms·
It's probably worth reading the post, which refutes these points.
by ipsum2 3y ago
It's probably worth reading the post, which refutes these points.
- grecy 3y agoIt does not refute them in any way. It very openly admits them while (trying to) justify them.
- ipsum2 3y ago"In late 2017, we and Elon decided the next step for the mission was to create a for-profit entity."
- the_optimist 3y ago1) They defied their original charter. 2) separately: Creating a for-profit entity is not what happened here. They transformed into a for-profit entity and discarded the non-profit mission. There is no vestige left of the original non-profit. Same funds, same code, same IP.
- gamblor956 3y agoThe for profit entity is owned by the non profit entity. This is permissible and a number of non profits operate this way.
- grecy 3y agoWould you be happy if you donated tens of millions to a non profit entity which then changed their mission and suddenly started making a profit?
- gamblor956 3y ago1) OpenAI did not change their mission. They are still pursuing AI. They are simply making more money doing it now than they did when they started. 2) Lots of non-profits make a profit. A non-profit is not defined by losing money, it is defined by the nature of what it does with its money, and what parts of its revenue are subject to taxation and what parts are tax-free. For example: the Microsoft contract would have been subject to income tax even if was directly with the OpenAI non-profit entity; moving that to the for-profit subsidiary just simplifies the accounting. 3) I do not think that OpenAI's mission should have ever qualified it for IRC 501(c)(3) status, but the IRS didn't agree and at this point it would be very difficult to challenge the (parent entity)'s non-profit status.
- grecy 3y agoI like the part where you didn't answer the question, but did a lot of whataboutism.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]