5 ms·

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.
        throwup238 2y ago
        > I've ran a not for profit worth ~$100m. Based on this thread I find that incredibly hard to believe. Incredibly. > It's only when you start doing completely unrelated activities, like Mozilla's women who code Or like... Mozilla Firefox. Cause that's why they've had Mozilla Corporation since 2005. Google pays the corporation for default search engine placement and all of the full time Firefox developers I've ever known have worked for the corporation, not the nonprofit.
  - 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.

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.
        throwup238 2y ago
        > I've ran a not for profit worth ~$100m. Based on this thread I find that incredibly hard to believe. Incredibly. > It's only when you start doing completely unrelated activities, like Mozilla's women who code Or like... Mozilla Firefox. Cause that's why they've had Mozilla Corporation since 2005. Google pays the corporation for default search engine placement and all of the full time Firefox developers I've ever known have worked for the corporation, not the nonprofit.
- 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.