3 ms·

I doubt there’s a precedent for a CEO of a “non-profit” effectively answerable to no-one and able to use it as their personal fiefdom. It’s basically a company

I doubt there’s a precedent for a CEO of a “non-profit” effectively answerable to no-one and able to use it as their personal fiefdom. It’s basically a company without shareholders. I’m curious how this will play out legally. Certainly, no one with any sense will be “donating” any money in OpenAI without some strong and specific guarantees of what they’re going to be getting in return. So it can in no way can be considered a non-profit any more. And if the situation is allowed to stand then I think future donors to any non-profits might think more carefully about what their money will be used for.

mustache_kimono 3y ago
> Certainly, no one with any sense will be “donating” any money in OpenAI without some strong and specific guarantees of what they’re going to be getting in return. And what about the taxpayer? What are these guys/gals fighting over if it isn't future profits? Has anyone else read the reporting on the non-profit's corp structure? > OpenAI also created a subsidiary of For-Profit-LP, OpenAI LLC (let’s call that “For-Profit-LLC”), of which Microsoft is a minority owner and For-Profit-LP is the majority owner. For-Profit-LLC’s operating agreement cautions that “it would be wise to view an investment in [For-Profit-LLC] in the spirit of a donation, with the understanding that it may be difficult to know what role money will play in a post-AGI [artificial general intelligence] world.”[0] I really have no idea why companies like Microsoft are putting so much money into a for profit entity, and calling it like a donation. Am I just skeptical or is everyone winking at each other, and acting too cute by half? [0]: https://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2024/03/05/the-untold-nonprofit-story-of-openai/ https://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2024/03/05/the-untold-no...
- mr_toad 3y ago
  Microsoft at least got licenses to a bunch of tech in return for their “donations”.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > I really have no idea why companies like Microsoft are putting so much money into a for profit entity, and calling it like a donation. Am I just skeptical or is everyone winking at each other, and acting too cute by half? All those "donators" went up in arms and threatened to sue/quit when they thought that those "donations" wouldn't return profits. It is a for-profit in all but name today.
juliusdavies 3y ago
Does the pope count as a precedent? Lots of donations head the pope’s way every day.
- thinkingemote 3y ago
  The church provides a number of charitable services in healthcare, education etc across the world particularly in the developing world. If you add them all up they provide the most globally. They actually do things compared to this "open" and "non profit" front of a technology company.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ben_w 3y ago
    You're comparing apples (openness) to oranges (doing stuff). It would be weird to even ask "How much open source code and research does the Catholic Church publish?" The church does stuff away for free, sure, but then so too does ChatGPT have this shockingly powerful free tier.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      > How much open source code and research does the Catholic Church publish? The Catholic church has not only engaged in centuries of religious scholarship, it has given the knowledge freely to anyone. They even set up buildings where you can go and they will teach you what they have found, most people go on Sunday. That isn't to mention their patronizing of the arts supported the greatest painters and composers that humanity has ever produced. Now how many hungry has OpenAI fed?
      - ben_w 3y ago
        > The Catholic church has not only engaged in centuries of religious scholarship, it has given the knowledge freely to anyone. They even set up buildings where you can go and they will teach you what they have found, most people go on Sunday. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Apostolic_Archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Apostolic_Archive Also, one of the biggest issues that Martin Luther had with Catholicism was that it put the clergy between the faithful and god. *The Thirty Years' War enters, stage left*. > Now how many hungry has OpenAI fed? Around as many as the number of Python programs that the Catholic Church has written with Hindi comments, which was one of the first things I tried on ChatGPT. There's also a reason why I said "apples (openness) to oranges (doing stuff)". OpenAI also didn't send nine crusades to liberate the holy lands from the Muslims. Someone probably thinks that makes them "woke" or something.
yieldcrv 3y ago
> I doubt there’s a precedent for a CEO of a “non-profit” effectively answerable to no-one and able to use it as their personal fiefdom this is actually already why non profits have difficulty raising money many people view charities as unaccountable scams most non profits are funded solely by the board and the endowment is managed to grow tax free. If you start reading the IRS forms 990 you’ll see pretty wild and inspirational things
- username332211 3y ago
  That's not actually very common in non-profits. In the Apache foundation, there's membership that elects the board. While the membership is determined by the executives appointed by the board, there's at least some thought given to the idea of holding the people on the top accountable.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    > That's not actually very common in non-profits. there is a lot wrong with that assumption based on a single anecdote. private foundations can have a single board member and that board member can be the single donor. although the IRS does not care in granting tax-exempt status, not all states offer a single board member for their own non-profit entity catalogue, but relevant states do like Delaware. of course Delaware does right? additionally, it doesn't matter what a state's non-profit entity selection has as any entity can obtain non-profit tax exempt status from the IRS technically, even unincorporated entities like sole-proprietorships ie. your general person when operating the charitable mission. there is some transparency of this which is not aggregated, in the 990 series of tax disclosures that non-profits have to provide, this can show how many board members or directors there are, if that's whats important for you to prove. I don't think that's important, but this is about "common" or not and I don't have the aggregate data, that's where to get partial data. none of these forms tell you the bylaws of the organization, these are still private documents. the bylaws dictate board member selection. next, if Donor Advised Funds count as non-profits in your mind, that's a slam dunk as those are all pools of capital for grant making run by a single donor. and where the transparency totally fails is in exempt non-profits, these report only the "postcard" 990-N and is entirely on an honor system that they have less than $50,000 in "annual receipts". these are cheap to create and nobody knows anything about them, what's actually on their balance sheet, there are basically no audits as they are tax exempt and there is no reason to determine what's missing. I usually don't write this stuff as its more beneficial if the people had more disjointed opinions about tax matters, but I don't think Congress will ever reach consensus on any opinion people harbor so its fine. One of those examples where truth is less familiar than fiction.

mustache_kimono 3y ago

> Certainly, no one with any sense will be “donating” any money in OpenAI without some strong and specific guarantees of what they’re going to be getting in return. And what about the taxpayer? What are these guys/gals fighting over if it isn't future profits? Has anyone else read the reporting on the non-profit's corp structure? > OpenAI also created a subsidiary of For-Profit-LP, OpenAI LLC (let’s call that “For-Profit-LLC”), of which Microsoft is a minority owner and For-Profit-LP is the majority owner. For-Profit-LLC’s operating agreement cautions that “it would be wise to view an investment in [For-Profit-LLC] in the spirit of a donation, with the understanding that it may be difficult to know what role money will play in a post-AGI [artificial general intelligence] world.”[0] I really have no idea why companies like Microsoft are putting so much money into a for profit entity, and calling it like a donation. Am I just skeptical or is everyone winking at each other, and acting too cute by half? [0]: https://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2024/03/05/the-untold-nonprofit-story-of-openai/ https://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2024/03/05/the-untold-no...

mr_toad 3y ago
Microsoft at least got licenses to a bunch of tech in return for their “donations”.
Jensson 3y ago
> I really have no idea why companies like Microsoft are putting so much money into a for profit entity, and calling it like a donation. Am I just skeptical or is everyone winking at each other, and acting too cute by half? All those "donators" went up in arms and threatened to sue/quit when they thought that those "donations" wouldn't return profits. It is a for-profit in all but name today.

juliusdavies 3y ago

Does the pope count as a precedent? Lots of donations head the pope’s way every day.

thinkingemote 3y ago
The church provides a number of charitable services in healthcare, education etc across the world particularly in the developing world. If you add them all up they provide the most globally. They actually do things compared to this "open" and "non profit" front of a technology company.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ben_w 3y ago
  You're comparing apples (openness) to oranges (doing stuff). It would be weird to even ask "How much open source code and research does the Catholic Church publish?" The church does stuff away for free, sure, but then so too does ChatGPT have this shockingly powerful free tier.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    > How much open source code and research does the Catholic Church publish? The Catholic church has not only engaged in centuries of religious scholarship, it has given the knowledge freely to anyone. They even set up buildings where you can go and they will teach you what they have found, most people go on Sunday. That isn't to mention their patronizing of the arts supported the greatest painters and composers that humanity has ever produced. Now how many hungry has OpenAI fed?
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > The Catholic church has not only engaged in centuries of religious scholarship, it has given the knowledge freely to anyone. They even set up buildings where you can go and they will teach you what they have found, most people go on Sunday. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Apostolic_Archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Apostolic_Archive Also, one of the biggest issues that Martin Luther had with Catholicism was that it put the clergy between the faithful and god. *The Thirty Years' War enters, stage left*. > Now how many hungry has OpenAI fed? Around as many as the number of Python programs that the Catholic Church has written with Hindi comments, which was one of the first things I tried on ChatGPT. There's also a reason why I said "apples (openness) to oranges (doing stuff)". OpenAI also didn't send nine crusades to liberate the holy lands from the Muslims. Someone probably thinks that makes them "woke" or something.

yieldcrv 3y ago

> I doubt there’s a precedent for a CEO of a “non-profit” effectively answerable to no-one and able to use it as their personal fiefdom this is actually already why non profits have difficulty raising money many people view charities as unaccountable scams most non profits are funded solely by the board and the endowment is managed to grow tax free. If you start reading the IRS forms 990 you’ll see pretty wild and inspirational things

username332211 3y ago
That's not actually very common in non-profits. In the Apache foundation, there's membership that elects the board. While the membership is determined by the executives appointed by the board, there's at least some thought given to the idea of holding the people on the top accountable.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  > That's not actually very common in non-profits. there is a lot wrong with that assumption based on a single anecdote. private foundations can have a single board member and that board member can be the single donor. although the IRS does not care in granting tax-exempt status, not all states offer a single board member for their own non-profit entity catalogue, but relevant states do like Delaware. of course Delaware does right? additionally, it doesn't matter what a state's non-profit entity selection has as any entity can obtain non-profit tax exempt status from the IRS technically, even unincorporated entities like sole-proprietorships ie. your general person when operating the charitable mission. there is some transparency of this which is not aggregated, in the 990 series of tax disclosures that non-profits have to provide, this can show how many board members or directors there are, if that's whats important for you to prove. I don't think that's important, but this is about "common" or not and I don't have the aggregate data, that's where to get partial data. none of these forms tell you the bylaws of the organization, these are still private documents. the bylaws dictate board member selection. next, if Donor Advised Funds count as non-profits in your mind, that's a slam dunk as those are all pools of capital for grant making run by a single donor. and where the transparency totally fails is in exempt non-profits, these report only the "postcard" 990-N and is entirely on an honor system that they have less than $50,000 in "annual receipts". these are cheap to create and nobody knows anything about them, what's actually on their balance sheet, there are basically no audits as they are tax exempt and there is no reason to determine what's missing. I usually don't write this stuff as its more beneficial if the people had more disjointed opinions about tax matters, but I don't think Congress will ever reach consensus on any opinion people harbor so its fine. One of those examples where truth is less familiar than fiction.