> 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.

> 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...