4 ms·

This is great, and I'd like to see more of it. Honestly we should be asking why we tolerate any type of corporation except one that's public benefit. Why are we

This is great, and I'd like to see more of it. Honestly we should be asking why we tolerate any type of corporation except one that's public benefit. Why are we as a society giving owners of capital any special, privileged shield from liability if they aren't using it for the betterment of society? And it wasn't ever thus, either. Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. really screwed things up.

wging 2y ago
It's better compared to the baseline of a for-profit corporation, especially given the stakes -- but it's strictly worse compared to the intended purpose of the existing structure that was recently hollowed out. The nonprofit entity that was originally supposed to be in control actually won't be. I'd also question whether there is actually going to be a meaningful check on any of OpenAI's actions, compared to what there would be for a for-profit corporation. I'd bet no.
- mullingitover 2y ago
  I agree that in this case, PBC is a downgrade in terms of strictness of mission. In general though, PBC is better than standard corporate goals of strictly maximizing shareholder value, employees/customers/the public be damned.
- baking 2y ago
  The nonprofit will hold stock in the BPC. I think the effect of this is that the nonprofit board, which is independent of Altman, will be restricted from selling their shares. However the nonprofit will eventually convert from a public charity to a private foundation and will be required to give away a percentage of their assets every year. I'm not sure how that will work with a BPC.
renewiltord 2y ago
My life has been more improved by people acting for their own profit and being open about it than people ostensibly acting for the “public benefit”
dr_dshiv 2y ago
Who gets to decide? Thats the challenge. The amazing thing is that the pursuit of personal enrichment, when regulated in moderation, tends to create a system that is in the public’s benefit. So we allow companies that are self interested because that, at scale, actually supports the public benefit more than requiring all companies to do specific things mandated as for the public benefit.
- mullingitover 2y ago
  > tends Tends is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. The model of "Let's have the worst people do whatever they want, for the most selfish possible reasons, and hope for the best" has also produced a horrific amount of suffering. Crazy amounts of socialized externalized losses get hand-waved away.
  - dmitrygr 2y ago
    And yet all the most prosperous countries in the world are the ones that allow individuals to seek unbounded profits, and all the darkest holes of history are in situations that attempt to tell people how to live
    - mullingitover 2y ago
      Every single society has told people how to live since the Code of Hammurabi. The darkest times in history have happened when people with power dehumanized large groups of people, and that's not particular to any economic philosophy.
    - Muromec 2y ago
      Why the most prosperous country in the world has homeless, opioid epidemic and is pretty consistent in having the same kind of problems? Can you really call it the most prosperous then?
      - dmitrygr 2y ago
        Yes I can. Because none of the others would allow my family the standard of life we have here.
IncreasePosts 2y ago
First of all, it is extremely difficult to say whether certain actions are good for society. I think there are some things that you can say are clearly good or bad for society, but what about all the stuff in the middle? Would the Coca-Cola company be allowed to exist in this world? Are professional sports team good for society?
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  Requiring benefit is a huge step from where we are. Perhaps it would be easier periodically determine the n most harmful and dissolve them. Predation is known to make an ecosystem healthier. This would sidestep the problem of: > but what about all the stuff in the middle
  - waldohatesyou 2y ago
    What do you think the top 10 worst companies are? How likely do you think it is that your list matches mine or anyone else’s?
    - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
      Exact match? Unlikely. But suppose that with each tax return, everybody had the option of listing 5 corporations which they believed were doing more harm than good. It would be simple statistics to determine if the signal was strong enough to warrant action. As for mine, well I'd have to do a bit of research but they'd likely come be in defense, oil, or adtech. Perhaps we also could list 5 which we think are having a positive impact. The assets of the bad ones could be auctioned off to the good ones, the money made from that auction could go towards severance for anyone whose job was dissolved.
  - notJim 2y ago
    > Requiring benefit is a huge step from where we are. The phrase "requiring benefit" is doing a huge amount of heavy lifting in this statement by assuming benefit is something that can easily be agreed upon, or that it's not already taken into account. Since it will obviously be difficult to agree on this, what if we just vote? I'd propose a system where each of us gets a certain amount of tokens, and then we use our tokens to vote on which products are beneficial. Those companies that make beneficial products will receive the most tokens. They can distribute some of them to their employees and shareholders. The companies that don't provide enough benefit will naturally go under as they fail to accumulate enough tokens to attract employees. We can also set up systems to ensure that everyone receives a minimum number of tokens, and also so that certain people don't accumulate so many tokens as to give them too much control over society. I believe this system will work well for rewarding companies which produce benefits and punishing those who don't and look forward to it being implemented.
nradov 2y ago
Because the privileged shield from liability encourages economic growth and raises the standard of living for everyone. Without that shield, potential investment losses would be infinite and investors would hoard their capital instead of using it to fund new ventures. Our entire economy would be smaller, slower, and less innovative. Yes occasionally corporate owners and managers do bad things, and escape serious financial consequences due to the liability shield. So what. That is an acceptable consequence considering all of the other benefits.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
After reading your comment, I did a little searching and found a great essay on the shareholder primacy standard in Delaware: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2916960 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2916960 Contrary to what a lot of other commenters are saying, the shareholder primacy rule is relatively recent (basically since the 80s), and before that there was broad recognition that corporate boards could balance the interests of various stakeholders. This essay also argues that Dodge v Ford Motor (which was in the Michigan Supreme Court) actually had little practical impact - it was cases like Unocal and Revlon in the Delaware courts that had a much bigger impact on actual board behavior in the US.
anticensor 2y ago
Unlimited corporations (anonymous and personhood but not limited liability) could also be tolerated.
rqtwteye 2y ago
As far as I understand Public Benefit is as meaningless as non profit. The names are extremely misleading. A public benefit corporation doesn’t necessarily have to provide benefits for the public and non profits can be extremely profitable for the right people.

wging 2y ago

It's better compared to the baseline of a for-profit corporation, especially given the stakes -- but it's strictly worse compared to the intended purpose of the existing structure that was recently hollowed out. The nonprofit entity that was originally supposed to be in control actually won't be. I'd also question whether there is actually going to be a meaningful check on any of OpenAI's actions, compared to what there would be for a for-profit corporation. I'd bet no.

mullingitover 2y ago
I agree that in this case, PBC is a downgrade in terms of strictness of mission. In general though, PBC is better than standard corporate goals of strictly maximizing shareholder value, employees/customers/the public be damned.
baking 2y ago
The nonprofit will hold stock in the BPC. I think the effect of this is that the nonprofit board, which is independent of Altman, will be restricted from selling their shares. However the nonprofit will eventually convert from a public charity to a private foundation and will be required to give away a percentage of their assets every year. I'm not sure how that will work with a BPC.

renewiltord 2y ago

My life has been more improved by people acting for their own profit and being open about it than people ostensibly acting for the “public benefit”

dr_dshiv 2y ago

Who gets to decide? Thats the challenge. The amazing thing is that the pursuit of personal enrichment, when regulated in moderation, tends to create a system that is in the public’s benefit. So we allow companies that are self interested because that, at scale, actually supports the public benefit more than requiring all companies to do specific things mandated as for the public benefit.

mullingitover 2y ago
> tends Tends is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. The model of "Let's have the worst people do whatever they want, for the most selfish possible reasons, and hope for the best" has also produced a horrific amount of suffering. Crazy amounts of socialized externalized losses get hand-waved away.
- dmitrygr 2y ago
  And yet all the most prosperous countries in the world are the ones that allow individuals to seek unbounded profits, and all the darkest holes of history are in situations that attempt to tell people how to live
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    Every single society has told people how to live since the Code of Hammurabi. The darkest times in history have happened when people with power dehumanized large groups of people, and that's not particular to any economic philosophy.
  - Muromec 2y ago
    Why the most prosperous country in the world has homeless, opioid epidemic and is pretty consistent in having the same kind of problems? Can you really call it the most prosperous then?
    - dmitrygr 2y ago
      Yes I can. Because none of the others would allow my family the standard of life we have here.

IncreasePosts 2y ago

First of all, it is extremely difficult to say whether certain actions are good for society. I think there are some things that you can say are clearly good or bad for society, but what about all the stuff in the middle? Would the Coca-Cola company be allowed to exist in this world? Are professional sports team good for society?

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
Requiring benefit is a huge step from where we are. Perhaps it would be easier periodically determine the n most harmful and dissolve them. Predation is known to make an ecosystem healthier. This would sidestep the problem of: > but what about all the stuff in the middle
- waldohatesyou 2y ago
  What do you think the top 10 worst companies are? How likely do you think it is that your list matches mine or anyone else’s?
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    Exact match? Unlikely. But suppose that with each tax return, everybody had the option of listing 5 corporations which they believed were doing more harm than good. It would be simple statistics to determine if the signal was strong enough to warrant action. As for mine, well I'd have to do a bit of research but they'd likely come be in defense, oil, or adtech. Perhaps we also could list 5 which we think are having a positive impact. The assets of the bad ones could be auctioned off to the good ones, the money made from that auction could go towards severance for anyone whose job was dissolved.
- notJim 2y ago
  > Requiring benefit is a huge step from where we are. The phrase "requiring benefit" is doing a huge amount of heavy lifting in this statement by assuming benefit is something that can easily be agreed upon, or that it's not already taken into account. Since it will obviously be difficult to agree on this, what if we just vote? I'd propose a system where each of us gets a certain amount of tokens, and then we use our tokens to vote on which products are beneficial. Those companies that make beneficial products will receive the most tokens. They can distribute some of them to their employees and shareholders. The companies that don't provide enough benefit will naturally go under as they fail to accumulate enough tokens to attract employees. We can also set up systems to ensure that everyone receives a minimum number of tokens, and also so that certain people don't accumulate so many tokens as to give them too much control over society. I believe this system will work well for rewarding companies which produce benefits and punishing those who don't and look forward to it being implemented.

nradov 2y ago

Because the privileged shield from liability encourages economic growth and raises the standard of living for everyone. Without that shield, potential investment losses would be infinite and investors would hoard their capital instead of using it to fund new ventures. Our entire economy would be smaller, slower, and less innovative. Yes occasionally corporate owners and managers do bad things, and escape serious financial consequences due to the liability shield. So what. That is an acceptable consequence considering all of the other benefits.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

After reading your comment, I did a little searching and found a great essay on the shareholder primacy standard in Delaware: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2916960 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2916960 Contrary to what a lot of other commenters are saying, the shareholder primacy rule is relatively recent (basically since the 80s), and before that there was broad recognition that corporate boards could balance the interests of various stakeholders. This essay also argues that Dodge v Ford Motor (which was in the Michigan Supreme Court) actually had little practical impact - it was cases like Unocal and Revlon in the Delaware courts that had a much bigger impact on actual board behavior in the US.

anticensor 2y ago

Unlimited corporations (anonymous and personhood but not limited liability) could also be tolerated.

rqtwteye 2y ago

As far as I understand Public Benefit is as meaningless as non profit. The names are extremely misleading. A public benefit corporation doesn’t necessarily have to provide benefits for the public and non profits can be extremely profitable for the right people.