I think is to take advantages of tax loopholes and deductions are the main reason they keep the non-profit. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
at this level of wealth the philantropism "incentives" must be bigger than the "money" given away.
Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
211–220 of 339 posts
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#212Sam Altman is evil fullstop. He is a pure machiavellian villain. His goal is to the most powerful person on the planet. The future cannot be controlled by him or other autistic human successionists.
Who is the most powerful person on the planet at the moment?
Xi Jinping without a doubt.
Arguably followed by other dictators like Putin, and backdoor political operators like Peter Thiel.
Trump and Musk would be somewhere in the top 20, maybe.
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#213I don't understand why they are spending so much time and effort trying to put a positive spin on this whole for-profit thing. No one is buying it. We all know what's going on. Just say "we want to make lots of money" and move on with your lives.
I couldn't care less about their structure but the level of effort to put a positive spin on it makes the whole thing look more sketchy rather than less.
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everyone has a price, Speak for yourself.
I’ve thought about this, a lot. My price is way higher than it once was, but still, if someone came along and dropped $10bn on my desk, I’d hear them out. There’s things I’d say no to, regardless of price, but otherwise things are probably negotiable.
It might sound fun to 'have' $10bn but consider losing your family, knowing that every person you meet is after your money (because they are), not having anyone give you responsible feedback, spending large amounts of time dealing with lawyers and accountants and finance bros, and basically never being 'normal' again. Winning a huge amount of money in a lottery carries a huge chance of ruining your life.
There's a limit to the amount of money I'd want (or could even use), and it's well below $10b. If someone came around with $10m and an honest deal and someone else offered $10b to buy the morality in my left toe, I'd take the $10m without question.
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NFL was a 501c6 trade association, not a 501c3 though?
Ah interesting. How are those different?
The key thing is that assets of a 501c3 are irrevocably dedicated to charitable purposes, which is not the case for a 501c6. If the NFL had somehow started as a 501c3 before realizing that was a bad structure for their work, the standard approach would be for the 501c3 to sell their assets at fair market value to new for-profit. Then either those proceeds could be donated to other 501c3s, or the old NFL could continue as a foundation, applying those assets charitably.
(Not a lawyer, just someone interested in non-profits. I'm on the board of two, but that doesn't make me an expert in regulation!)
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We are turning our non profit into a for profit because we want to make money" isn't legal. To make this transition in a way that maximizes how much money they can make while minimizing what they lose to lawsuits they need to explain what they're doing in a positive way.
If everyone sees it through, does anything else that direct evidence of actions prove otherwise? Explaining just wastes everyone's time.
They are explaining how they see what they are doing as compliant with the law around 501c3s, which it arguably is. And they are putting a positive spin on it to make it less likely to be challenged, since the main ways this could be challenged involve government agencies and not suits from individuals.
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#217To quote Bill Clinton, "it's the economy, stupid". Or, rather, it's economics . AGI can go one of two ways in humanity's future: 1. We all need to work less because so many menial tasks are automated. We get more leisure time. Fewer than half of us probably have to work at all yet we all benefit to varying degrees by sharing in the rewards; or 2. The decreasing size of the required labor pool is used to further suppr…
There is another far worse option that you seem to be missing. Why keep any significant number of people around at all?
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this underestimates the degree to which the people on these companies legitimately believe what they’re saying. I’ve worked at one of these companies and absolutely would fall into your category of being a true believer at the time. People of all stripes are extremely willing to embrace ideas that justify their own personal benefit. A rich person might be more likely to believe in trickle-down economics becau…
Modern hiring process, esp culture fit, is designed to ensure that fraction of true believers inside the company is meaningfully higher compared to the outside.
I think it is simpler than that: people generally tend to work for companies who's products they think are interesting and useful. It's much easier to go into work each day when you think you're spending your time doing something useful.
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#219I fully understand Sam Altman is a little finger and I no longer touch any openAI projects.
Claude has been fantastic and even Grok decent. Perplexity is also useful and I recommend anyone knowledgeable to avoid openAI’s grubby hands.
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We are turning our non profit into a for profit because we want to make money" isn't legal. To make this transition in a way that maximizes how much money they can make while minimizing what they lose to lawsuits they need to explain what they're doing in a positive way.
Is it illegal? If it is, not amount of explaining will make it legal.
There are solidly legal and solidly illegal ways to do this, and a range of options in between. My reading of what they are doing is that it is pretty far toward the legal end of this spectrum, and the key question will be whether whether the non-profit is appropriately compensated for its stake in the for-profit.
Explaining reduces the chance that they're challenged by the IRS or attorney general, since that is a political process.