4 ms·

>If Sam decided it was a mistake to dedicate his time to a non-profit, he’s perfectly free to quit [...] To be clear, I don't think Sam can do anything and com

by jasode 2y ago

>If Sam decided it was a mistake to dedicate his time to a non-profit, he’s perfectly free to quit [...] To be clear, I don't think Sam can do anything and come out looking "good" from a public relations standpoint. That said, Sam probably thinks he's justified because he was one of the original founders and co-chair of OpenAI -- so he feels he should have a say in pivoting it to something else. He said he got all the other donors on board ... except for Elon. That leaves us with the messy situation today... Elon is the one filing the lawsuit and Sam is writing a PR blog post that's received as corporate doublespeak.

bradleyjg 2y ago
he was one of the original founders and co-chair of OpenAI -- so he feels he should have a say in pivoting it to something else No. Non-profit is a deal between those founders and society. That he was an original founder is irrelevant. I don’t care about Elon, it’s the pivoting that’s inherently dishonorable.
- jasode 2y ago
  > Non-profit is a deal between those founders and society. Yes I get that but did OpenAI ever take any public donations from society? I don't think they did. It thought it was only funded by wealthy private donors. >, it’s the pivoting that’s inherently dishonorable. Would creating a new company (i.e. ClosedAI) that recruits OpenAI's employees and buys the intellectual property such that it leaves a "shell" of OpenAI be acceptable? That's basically the roundabout thing Sam is trying to do now with a re-incorporated for-profit PBC that's not beholden to the 2015 non-profit organization ... except he's also trying to keep the strong branding of the existing "OpenAI" name instead of "ClosedAI". The existing laws allow for non-profit 501c3 organizations to "convert" (scare quotes) to for-profit status by re-incorporating to a (new) for-profit company. That seems to be Sam's legal roadmap. EDIT REPLY: They received benefits by dint of their status. If there were no such benefits The main benefit is tax exemption but OpenAI never had profits to be taxed. Also to clarify, there's already a for-profit OpenAI Global LLC. That's the subsidiary company Microsoft invested in. It has the convoluted "capped profit" structure. Sam says he can't attract enough investors to that for-profit entity. Therefore, he wants to create another for-profit OpenAI company that doesn't have the convoluted ("bespoke" as he put it) self-imposed rules to be more attractive to new investors. The 2 entities of non-profit and for-profit is like Mozilla Foundation + Mozilla Corporation. [] https://www.google.com/search?q=conversion+of+501c3+to+for-profit https://www.google.com/search?q=conversion+of+501c3+to+for-p...
  - bradleyjg 2y ago
    Yes I get that but did OpenAI ever take any public donations from society? I don't think they did. It thought it was only funded by wealthy private donors. They received benefits by dint of their status. If there were no such benefits they wouldn’t have incorporated that way. In any case, would creating a new company (i.e. ClosedAI) that recruits OpenAI's employees and buys the intellectual property such that it leaves a "shell" of OpenAI be acceptable? There’s no problem with recruiting employees. The intellectual property purchase is problematic. If it’s for sale, it should be for sale to anyone and no one connected to a bidder should be involved in evaluating offers. The existing laws allow for non-profit 501c3 organizations to "convert" (scare quotes) to for-profit status by re-incorporating to a (new) for-profit company. That seems to be Sam's legal roadmap. Legal and honorable are not synonyms.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- jay_kyburz 2y ago
  All I care about, (and I guess I don't care than much because I'm not a US citizen) is, has this move allowed them, or their contributors to pay less tax. That is their only obligation to the public. Was the non profit a way to just avoid tax until the time came to start making money?
  - diogofranco 2y ago
    "Was the non profit a way to just avoid tax until the time came to start making money?" You'd want to do it the other way around

by jasode 2y ago

bradleyjg 2y ago

he was one of the original founders and co-chair of OpenAI -- so he feels he should have a say in pivoting it to something else No. Non-profit is a deal between those founders and society. That he was an original founder is irrelevant. I don’t care about Elon, it’s the pivoting that’s inherently dishonorable.

jasode 2y ago
> Non-profit is a deal between those founders and society. Yes I get that but did OpenAI ever take any public donations from society? I don't think they did. It thought it was only funded by wealthy private donors. >, it’s the pivoting that’s inherently dishonorable. Would creating a new company (i.e. ClosedAI) that recruits OpenAI's employees and buys the intellectual property such that it leaves a "shell" of OpenAI be acceptable? That's basically the roundabout thing Sam is trying to do now with a re-incorporated for-profit PBC that's not beholden to the 2015 non-profit organization ... except he's also trying to keep the strong branding of the existing "OpenAI" name instead of "ClosedAI". The existing laws allow for non-profit 501c3 organizations to "convert" (scare quotes) to for-profit status by re-incorporating to a (new) for-profit company. That seems to be Sam's legal roadmap. EDIT REPLY: They received benefits by dint of their status. If there were no such benefits The main benefit is tax exemption but OpenAI never had profits to be taxed. Also to clarify, there's already a for-profit OpenAI Global LLC. That's the subsidiary company Microsoft invested in. It has the convoluted "capped profit" structure. Sam says he can't attract enough investors to that for-profit entity. Therefore, he wants to create another for-profit OpenAI company that doesn't have the convoluted ("bespoke" as he put it) self-imposed rules to be more attractive to new investors. The 2 entities of non-profit and for-profit is like Mozilla Foundation + Mozilla Corporation. [] https://www.google.com/search?q=conversion+of+501c3+to+for-profit https://www.google.com/search?q=conversion+of+501c3+to+for-p...
- bradleyjg 2y ago
  Yes I get that but did OpenAI ever take any public donations from society? I don't think they did. It thought it was only funded by wealthy private donors. They received benefits by dint of their status. If there were no such benefits they wouldn’t have incorporated that way. In any case, would creating a new company (i.e. ClosedAI) that recruits OpenAI's employees and buys the intellectual property such that it leaves a "shell" of OpenAI be acceptable? There’s no problem with recruiting employees. The intellectual property purchase is problematic. If it’s for sale, it should be for sale to anyone and no one connected to a bidder should be involved in evaluating offers. The existing laws allow for non-profit 501c3 organizations to "convert" (scare quotes) to for-profit status by re-incorporating to a (new) for-profit company. That seems to be Sam's legal roadmap. Legal and honorable are not synonyms.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
jay_kyburz 2y ago
All I care about, (and I guess I don't care than much because I'm not a US citizen) is, has this move allowed them, or their contributors to pay less tax. That is their only obligation to the public. Was the non profit a way to just avoid tax until the time came to start making money?
- diogofranco 2y ago
  "Was the non profit a way to just avoid tax until the time came to start making money?" You'd want to do it the other way around