Poison pills are much more effective at fending off takeovers. I think the public benefit form mainly helps with workforce and customer alignment to dampen dis

Poison pills are much more effective at fending off takeovers. I think the public benefit form mainly helps with workforce and customer alignment to dampen disruptions from transformative and invasive applications. Peter Gassner converted Veeva (pharmaceuticals software) to public benefit a few years ago. Veeva is probably 10X smaller and mostly captured by big pharma customers who don't want to compete on software infrastructure and want one place to stay in (FDA) compliance. So in that case the stakeholders have a pretty clear and distinct voice and mission. In the absence of dominant stakeholders, it's unclear who would govern OpenAI as a public benefit corporation. At a minimum, it's a moral hazard and an invitation to bureaucracy and politics. I'd be interested in OpenAI developing super clear and transparent customer feedback channels. That could improve AI, give incentive for people to participate in model improvement (instead of reflexively protecting their data), and be a forcing function against governance gaming. Amazon/Bezos has strong experience in managing by metrics, so it's a shame OpenAI has committed itself to Azure/Microsoft. Another alternative is the M-form, where subsidiaries are coordinated but live or die based on their own performance rather than cross-subsidies (recently in Google becoming Alphabet). But the history there isn't particularly good for innovation, and even profit lags except in industries with stable markets (Berkshire-style).