4 ms·

OpenAI went from a not-for-profit institution seeking to build in a safe and fair way that wouldn't advantage a handful of tech elite to very much the opposite.

OpenAI went from a not-for-profit institution seeking to build in a safe and fair way that wouldn't advantage a handful of tech elite to very much the opposite. We can speculate on Musk's own motivations or call him a hypocrite but he's not wrong in pointing out OpenAI's sketchy behavior.

KerrAvon 2y ago
We don't have to speculate on his motivations. He's literally bankrolling a competitor.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  You're still missing the part where a not for profit literally turned itself into a multi billion dollar for profit company and no ones been held accountable.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    Nonprofits have to do that if they engage in commercial activity for tax reasons. You can't just group whatever activities you want under a nonprofit and make all that money tax free. OpenAI had to split it off as a for-profit once they had a product to sell to the public. The nonprofit didn't "turn into" a for-profit, the nonprofit owns the corporation. Mozilla has the same structure with a for-profit corporation owned by the nonprofit, which allows it to take Google's money in exchange for default search engine placement. Likewise with Wikipedia/Wikimedia, Newman's Own, and so on.
    - llm_trw 2y ago
      You absolutely can. You just can't distribute the results as dividends.
      - throwup238 2y ago
        No, you absolutely can't. Nonprofits can't engage in substantial business activities that are unrelated to their mission. If they do, they can lose their non-profit status. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p598.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p598.pdf https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2021/jun/unrelated-business-activity-substantial-tax-exempt-organizations.html https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2021/jun/unrelated-busi...
        llm_trw 2y ago
        I'm trying to wrap my head around your point and having a real hard time understanding what the problem is. Yes, openai can't be a butcher, a baker, or a candlestick maker. This is a feature not a bug.
        throwup238 2y ago
        The problem is that you don't understand how tax exemption works? According to the OpenAI charter, their mission is to "ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity." That's their legally binding mission - not selling cloud services by the token or licensing their models to companies like Microsoft and Apple. Any lawyer with half a brain would have advised them that those activities would almost certainly be found by the IRS and the courts to be unrelated business activities, so they spun them off as a for-profit corporation instead of taking an entirely unnecessary risk. Just because their product is vaguely AGI related doesn't mean it has anything to do with their actual mission.
        llm_trw 2y ago
        I've ran a not for profit worth ~$100m. All of those things are ones which fall within the original charter of openai. It's only when you start doing completely unrelated activities, like Mozilla's women who code, or you start raiding the coffers of the organization, like Wikipedia, that you need fancy structures to hide the blatant theft.
    - mr_toad 2y ago
      > the nonprofit owns the corporation They only own about 2% of it. The rest is split between Microsoft and other investors.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        The nonprofit has 100% control of the for-profit entity, though it does not have 100% of equity.
        indoordin0saur 2y ago
        Even so, it doesn't matter. Controlling board has been replaced by cronies who have no interest in the original altruistic purpose of the company, whether they call themselves not-for-profit or not.
        mr_toad 2y ago
        The have 100% de jure control and 0% de facto control.
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    Elon Musk kept giving OpenAI money after they announced they did that (even admitted that in the complaint!), which makes me suspect he's not as miffed about that decision as he claims to be.
    - llm_trw 2y ago
      Notice how many times Elon Musk appears in my comment.
      - jcranmer 2y ago
        Since we're commenting on an article about Musk's suit against OpenAI purportedly seeking the accountability the lack of which you decry, it is reasonable to assume even in the absence of a direct mention that you are expressing an opinion on the merits of Musk's suit, at least re seeking accountability of OpenAI. Especially when you comment is a direct reply to someone talking about Musk.
        llm_trw 2y ago
        You should assume less and read more.
        indoordin0saur 2y ago
        But I'd agree that Musk is a distraction here. OpenAI started as a non-profit project working to prevent exactly the type of irresponsible, profit-driven AI arms race it now engages in. Whether Musk is an angel or a demon is immaterial.
adrr 2y ago
He formed x.ai. Is it non profit?
- Alupis 2y ago
  That would only be a "gotcha" if he claimed it was going to be a non-profit all along, then pulled a switch-a-roo a la OpenAI style...
qarl 2y ago
They needed Musk's pledge of $1B to remain non-profit. When he took back that money, their only choice was to either A) shut-down or B) go profit. I think most people (aside from Elon) are happy they didn't shut-down.
- indoordin0saur 2y ago
  If I remember correctly, they started a for-profit side business (initially to bring in a little cash) and Musk was concerned about the way it was developing and who was gaining power over the company as a result. Perhaps he just wanted to stay in charge and didn't like other VCs moving into his turf, but it's also apparent that his expressed concerns at the time proved wildly accurate.
  - qarl 2y ago
    Hm. I've never seen anything about a for-profit side business before Musk left. Do you have any references for that?
  - qarl 2y ago
    Yeah, I've Googled around and even asked ChatGPT. There seems to be no record of a for-profit side business. At least before Elon left. Of course they created one about a year after he left, because they're were running out of money, and would need to shut-down otherwise. I can understand not wanting Elon to be the head of your company. His behavior is a little erratic.

KerrAvon 2y ago

We don't have to speculate on his motivations. He's literally bankrolling a competitor.

llm_trw 2y ago
You're still missing the part where a not for profit literally turned itself into a multi billion dollar for profit company and no ones been held accountable.
- throwup238 2y ago
  Nonprofits have to do that if they engage in commercial activity for tax reasons. You can't just group whatever activities you want under a nonprofit and make all that money tax free. OpenAI had to split it off as a for-profit once they had a product to sell to the public. The nonprofit didn't "turn into" a for-profit, the nonprofit owns the corporation. Mozilla has the same structure with a for-profit corporation owned by the nonprofit, which allows it to take Google's money in exchange for default search engine placement. Likewise with Wikipedia/Wikimedia, Newman's Own, and so on.
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    You absolutely can. You just can't distribute the results as dividends.
    - throwup238 2y ago
      No, you absolutely can't. Nonprofits can't engage in substantial business activities that are unrelated to their mission. If they do, they can lose their non-profit status. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p598.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p598.pdf https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2021/jun/unrelated-business-activity-substantial-tax-exempt-organizations.html https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2021/jun/unrelated-busi...
      - llm_trw 2y ago
        I'm trying to wrap my head around your point and having a real hard time understanding what the problem is. Yes, openai can't be a butcher, a baker, or a candlestick maker. This is a feature not a bug.
        throwup238 2y ago
        The problem is that you don't understand how tax exemption works? According to the OpenAI charter, their mission is to "ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity." That's their legally binding mission - not selling cloud services by the token or licensing their models to companies like Microsoft and Apple. Any lawyer with half a brain would have advised them that those activities would almost certainly be found by the IRS and the courts to be unrelated business activities, so they spun them off as a for-profit corporation instead of taking an entirely unnecessary risk. Just because their product is vaguely AGI related doesn't mean it has anything to do with their actual mission.
        llm_trw 2y ago
        I've ran a not for profit worth ~$100m. All of those things are ones which fall within the original charter of openai. It's only when you start doing completely unrelated activities, like Mozilla's women who code, or you start raiding the coffers of the organization, like Wikipedia, that you need fancy structures to hide the blatant theft.
  - mr_toad 2y ago
    > the nonprofit owns the corporation They only own about 2% of it. The rest is split between Microsoft and other investors.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      The nonprofit has 100% control of the for-profit entity, though it does not have 100% of equity.
      - indoordin0saur 2y ago
        Even so, it doesn't matter. Controlling board has been replaced by cronies who have no interest in the original altruistic purpose of the company, whether they call themselves not-for-profit or not.
      - mr_toad 2y ago
        The have 100% de jure control and 0% de facto control.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  Elon Musk kept giving OpenAI money after they announced they did that (even admitted that in the complaint!), which makes me suspect he's not as miffed about that decision as he claims to be.
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    Notice how many times Elon Musk appears in my comment.
    - jcranmer 2y ago
      Since we're commenting on an article about Musk's suit against OpenAI purportedly seeking the accountability the lack of which you decry, it is reasonable to assume even in the absence of a direct mention that you are expressing an opinion on the merits of Musk's suit, at least re seeking accountability of OpenAI. Especially when you comment is a direct reply to someone talking about Musk.
      - llm_trw 2y ago
        You should assume less and read more.
      - indoordin0saur 2y ago
        But I'd agree that Musk is a distraction here. OpenAI started as a non-profit project working to prevent exactly the type of irresponsible, profit-driven AI arms race it now engages in. Whether Musk is an angel or a demon is immaterial.

adrr 2y ago

He formed x.ai. Is it non profit?

Alupis 2y ago
That would only be a "gotcha" if he claimed it was going to be a non-profit all along, then pulled a switch-a-roo a la OpenAI style...

qarl 2y ago

They needed Musk's pledge of $1B to remain non-profit. When he took back that money, their only choice was to either A) shut-down or B) go profit. I think most people (aside from Elon) are happy they didn't shut-down.

indoordin0saur 2y ago
If I remember correctly, they started a for-profit side business (initially to bring in a little cash) and Musk was concerned about the way it was developing and who was gaining power over the company as a result. Perhaps he just wanted to stay in charge and didn't like other VCs moving into his turf, but it's also apparent that his expressed concerns at the time proved wildly accurate.
- qarl 2y ago
  Hm. I've never seen anything about a for-profit side business before Musk left. Do you have any references for that?
- qarl 2y ago
  Yeah, I've Googled around and even asked ChatGPT. There seems to be no record of a for-profit side business. At least before Elon left. Of course they created one about a year after he left, because they're were running out of money, and would need to shut-down otherwise. I can understand not wanting Elon to be the head of your company. His behavior is a little erratic.