4 ms·

That is a very obvious thing for them to say though regardless of what they truly believe, because (a) it legitimizes removing the cap , making fundraising easi

• selfselfgo 1y ago
  [dead]
• throwaway48476 1y ago
  (b) is true but no so much (a). If investors thought it would be winner take all and they thought ClosedAI would win they'd invest in ClosedAI only and starve competitors of funding.
  • sebastiennight 1y ago
    Actually I'm thinking in a winner-takes-all universe, the right strategy would be to spread your bets on as many likely winners as possible. That's literally the premise of venture capital. This is a scenario where we're assuming ALL our bets will go to zero, except one which will be worth trillions. In that case you should bet on everything. It's only in the opposite scenario (where every bet pays off with varying ROI) that it makes sense to go all-in on whichever bet seems most promising.
    • AbstractH24 1y ago
      Y that sounds just like a certain startup incubator’s perspective on things.
• pryce 1y ago
  > "Our for-profit LLC, which has been under the nonprofit since 2019, will transition to a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)–a purpose-driven company structure that has to consider the interests of both shareholders and the mission." One remarkable advantage of being a "Public Benefit Corporation" is this it: > prevent[s] shareholders from using a drop in stock value as evidence for dismissal or a lawsuit against the corporation[1] In my view, it is their own shareholders that the directors of OpenAI are insulating themselves against. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation