Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 359 posts

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#21

Post by rxyz »

swyx wrote: post #15
leetharris wrote: post #4

This is kind of a wild story. Sam Altman is openly flexing that he was able to skirt the rules and regulations by threatening economic damage to California. It's not even subtle anymore. This reminds me of when the former CEO of Hyundai, Chung Mong-koo, went to prison for embezzlement. In just 3 years he was pardoned because the President of South Korea basically said, "we need you for the economy." We're not even pr…

> threatening economic damage to California. whoa there. corporations have the right to move to the best location for them. California does not have the eternal right to OpenAI's taxes and employee base. think about what you're implicitly assuming here. if one company simply leaving causes concerning "damage" then perhaps it is the government that is the problem, not the corporation driving economic growth.

Corporations used to not have that much political power

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#22

Post by dragonwriter »

swyx wrote: post #15
leetharris wrote: post #4

This is kind of a wild story. Sam Altman is openly flexing that he was able to skirt the rules and regulations by threatening economic damage to California. It's not even subtle anymore. This reminds me of when the former CEO of Hyundai, Chung Mong-koo, went to prison for embezzlement. In just 3 years he was pardoned because the President of South Korea basically said, "we need you for the economy." We're not even pr…

> threatening economic damage to California. whoa there. corporations have the right to move to the best location for them. California does not have the eternal right to OpenAI's taxes and employee base. think about what you're implicitly assuming here. if one company simply leaving causes concerning "damage" then perhaps it is the government that is the problem, not the corporation driving economic growth.

Corporations are applications of government power and have no natural rights, their legal rights are at best proxies for the rights of natural persons with some interest in them, and at worst a fiction which serves to limit the rights of natural persons.

Also, having a right to do something does not contradict a description of you leveraging power by using a threat of doing it, in the first place.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#23

Post by danielmarkbruce »

swyx wrote: post #14
jameslk wrote: post #11

TFA: > OpenAI had spent months making the case that it was the economic heart of the California economy—and would be willing to leave if Bonta blocked its plan to convert to a simpler corporate structure. https://x.com/sama/status/1983223056668746218 : > California is my home, and I love it here, and when I talked to Attorney General Bonta two weeks ago I made clear that we were not going to do what those other compa…

> if Bonta blocked its plan to convert to a simpler corporate structure. i'm a bit out of the loop but honestly why does California have a say? surely the investor base and Microsoft was a far harder negotiation than this one. this one smells of govt overreach.

The entity in question operates in california and is thus subject to california law. California has laws around charitable entities.

One might reasonably claim it's overreach, but in response OpenAI could just leave the state. Which is what they threatened.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#24

Post by atonse »

hrimfaxi wrote: post #16
swyx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if Bonta blocked its plan to convert to a simpler corporate structure. i'm a bit out of the loop but honestly why does California have a say? surely the investor base and Microsoft was a far harder negotiation than this one. this one smells of govt overreach.

Corporations exist at the pleasure of government do they not? They are not some naturally-existing thing.

I would think that sort of framing implies that the government gives them permission to exist.

Rather than, the natural state is that they exist unless they do something bad enough to be shut down.

Unless you mean, they need the government's "permission" to even file to become a corporation... But even in that case, you aren't asking for permission, you're doing the old school equivalent of signing up for a domain, you're submitting a filing and reserving a spot for that name/ID.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#25

Post by bix6 »

CamelCaseName wrote: post #10
leetharris wrote: post #4

This is kind of a wild story. Sam Altman is openly flexing that he was able to skirt the rules and regulations by threatening economic damage to California. It's not even subtle anymore. This reminds me of when the former CEO of Hyundai, Chung Mong-koo, went to prison for embezzlement. In just 3 years he was pardoned because the President of South Korea basically said, "we need you for the economy." We're not even pr…

Can someone explain to me what Sam Altman is doing to be so far ahead of everyone else in terms of navigating these high stakes roles? This happened at YC and a number of other places too, he goes into situations with nothing and comes out on top despite all odds. Is he that skilled an operator, negotiator, or manipulator or something?

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma...

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#26

Post by danielmarkbruce »

CamelCaseName wrote: post #10
leetharris wrote: post #4

This is kind of a wild story. Sam Altman is openly flexing that he was able to skirt the rules and regulations by threatening economic damage to California. It's not even subtle anymore. This reminds me of when the former CEO of Hyundai, Chung Mong-koo, went to prison for embezzlement. In just 3 years he was pardoned because the President of South Korea basically said, "we need you for the economy." We're not even pr…

Can someone explain to me what Sam Altman is doing to be so far ahead of everyone else in terms of navigating these high stakes roles? This happened at YC and a number of other places too, he goes into situations with nothing and comes out on top despite all odds. Is he that skilled an operator, negotiator, or manipulator or something?

It's a bit much to say he goes into situations with nothing - he, along with others created OpenAI. It's a decent sized company now and they have sway with governments. All decent sized companies do as employers. This kind of stuff happens all the time and it just doesn't get reported as much.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#27

Post by JumpCrisscross »

hrimfaxi wrote: post #16
swyx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if Bonta blocked its plan to convert to a simpler corporate structure. i'm a bit out of the loop but honestly why does California have a say? surely the investor base and Microsoft was a far harder negotiation than this one. this one smells of govt overreach.

Corporations exist at the pleasure of government do they not? They are not some naturally-existing thing.

> Corporations exist at the pleasure of government do they not?

No. “At the pleasure of” means total discretion. The government can’t just stop letting businesses incorporate because it doesn’t like how a county voted.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#28

Post by d0odk »

somanyphotons wrote: post #7
gretch wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you and I hope you are right. >Offload a massive illiquid investment onto the public Because this state seems like a very solvable problem: All you have to is not buy it

ETFs like VOO will buy it eventually. It started me wondering if theres an ETF that explicitly avoids the top 20 companies

My gut instinct is that this would be a hugely underperforming investment strategy on both an absolute and risk adjusted basis. I would welcome empirical evidence contradicting my gut.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#29

Post by JumpCrisscross »

dragonwriter wrote: post #22
swyx wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> threatening economic damage to California. whoa there. corporations have the right to move to the best location for them. California does not have the eternal right to OpenAI's taxes and employee base. think about what you're implicitly assuming here. if one company simply leaving causes concerning "damage" then perhaps it is the government that is the problem, not the corporation driving economic growth.

Corporations are applications of government power and have no natural rights, their legal rights are at best proxies for the rights of natural persons with some interest in them, and at worst a fiction which serves to limit the rights of natural persons. Also, having a right to do something does not contradict a description of you leveraging power by using a threat of doing it, in the first place.

> Corporations are applications of government power and have no natural rights

Sure. Whatever. The people who own and work at OpenAI have no obligation to remain in California.

(I’d also argue that global norms are currently walking back from the notion of natural rights pretty much everywhere except for in some parts of Europe. The concept doesn’t work without an appeal to divinity.)

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#30

Post by bix6 »

swyx wrote: post #14
jameslk wrote: post #11

TFA: > OpenAI had spent months making the case that it was the economic heart of the California economy—and would be willing to leave if Bonta blocked its plan to convert to a simpler corporate structure. https://x.com/sama/status/1983223056668746218 : > California is my home, and I love it here, and when I talked to Attorney General Bonta two weeks ago I made clear that we were not going to do what those other compa…

> if Bonta blocked its plan to convert to a simpler corporate structure. i'm a bit out of the loop but honestly why does California have a say? surely the investor base and Microsoft was a far harder negotiation than this one. this one smells of govt overreach.

Because the company was formed as a non-profit and now wants to cash out? He has to protect the integrity of non-profits as a distinct entity type.
Post reply on HN