331–340 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The organization consists of the non-profit OpenAI, Inc. registered in Delaware and its for-profit subsidiary OpenAI Global, LLC. (From Wikipedia)
A non-profit can have a for-profit subsidiary?
There is a lot in here but turning a non-profit into a for-profit definitely should be challenged. Otherwise why wouldn't everyone start as a non-profit, develop your IP, and then switch to 'for-profit' mode once you got something that works? You don't pay income taxes and your investors get write offs.
This. Even when we ignore the whole ethical aspect of "AI for benefit of humanity" and all that philosophic stuff, there are very real legal reasons why OpenAI should never have been allowed to switch to for profit. They were only able to circumvent this with their new dual company structure, but this should still not be legal.
That would be a Nuke in the AI world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When people say too big to fail, normally they're referring to companies which if they fail they would bring down other important parts of society's infrastructure (think biggest banks), and so someone (the gov) will last minute change the rules around to ensure they don't fail. The openai fails, absolutely nothing happens other than its shareholder losing their paper money. So no, they're not too big to fail.
If they fail, other entities with little to no American oversight/control potentially become the leading edge in artificial intelligence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that qualifies as "standing", but IANAL.
I think the missing info here is that Musk gave the non-profit the initial $100 million dollars, which they used to develop the technology purportedly for the benefit of the public, and then turned around and added a for-profit subsidiary where all the work is happening.
There is a lot in here but turning a non-profit into a for-profit definitely should be challenged. Otherwise why wouldn't everyone start as a non-profit, develop your IP, and then switch to 'for-profit' mode once you got something that works? You don't pay income taxes and your investors get write offs.
This. Even when we ignore the whole ethical aspect of "AI for benefit of humanity" and all that philosophic stuff, there are very real legal reasons why OpenAI should never have been allowed to switch to for profit. They were only able to circumvent this with their new dual company structure, but this should still not be legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. Even when we ignore the whole ethical aspect of "AI for benefit of humanity" and all that philosophic stuff, there are very real legal reasons why OpenAI should never have been allowed to switch to for profit. They were only able to circumvent this with their new dual company structure, but this should still not be legal.
Imagine if as punishment, OpenAI were forced to OpenSource any and all IP that was developed in the non-profit phase of their company? That would be a Nuke in the AI world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A non-profit took his money and decided to be for profit and compete with the AI efforts of his own companies?
You would have an argument if Elon Musk didn't attempted to take over OpenAI, and proceeded to abandon it after his attempts were rejected and he complained the organization was going nowhere. https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/24/23654701/openai-elon-musk... I don't think Elon Musk has a case or holds the moral high ground. It sounds like he's just pissed he committed a colossal error of analysis and is now trying to r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not at all clear on what a "not for profit" status even does, tax wise. In any jurisdiction. They are still able to actually make a profit (and quite often will, because careful balancing of perfect profit and loss is almost impossible and loss is bad), and I thought those profits were still taxed because otherwise that's too obvious as a tax dodge, it's just that profit isn't their main goal?
Well, you're confused because of your erroneous determination that they're "able to make a profit." They are not. They are able to have positive cash flow but the money can only be reinvested in the nonprofit rather than extracted as profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t everything securities fraud though
The only way to truly make a ton of wealth is to break rules that others follow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why do people in our industry always make the assumption that everyone else are morons? The populace understands what a non-profit is.
our industry? I know the public doesnt because I grew up among people working in non profit sphere and the things people say on here and elsewhere about what non profits do and don't is just flat out wrong. e: i mean it is obvious, most people even on here do not seem to know what profit even is, for instance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39563492
Unless you're a lawyer specializing in negligence, there is nuance to negligence you don't know about. Does that imply you don't understand negligence?
You need to separate those two things out from each other.