31–40 of 171 posts
Does anyone really believe this is more than performative? Increasingly the most likely outcome of such scrutiny is… nothing. He hasn’t stolen enough from the rich to earn any sort of punishment, and he’s not doing anything too different from the Congress critters that are “investigating” him.
The thesis is as follows: OpenAI receives funds as a non-profit. Some of those funds are redirected to for profit ventures. Critically, the GM (Altman) of the nonprofit owns shares of the for-profit ventures, that OpenAI funds were redirected into. A regular company could and does invest in any company even when there's a conflict, as long as the conflict is disclosed and the Board votes in favor of it. There's no cr…
The thesis is as follows: OpenAI receives funds as a non-profit. Some of those funds are redirected to for profit ventures. Critically, the GM (Altman) of the nonprofit owns shares of the for-profit ventures, that OpenAI funds were redirected into. A regular company could and does invest in any company even when there's a conflict, as long as the conflict is disclosed and the Board votes in favor of it. There's no cr…
Doesn't Sam Altman famously not own OpenAI? His whole arrangement is so shady.
No doubt some of OpenAI's founding principles like "stop + assist if a competitor gets to AGI first" are likely flying out the window, perhaps in part due to him and also as one might anticipate of initial lofty ideals and promises, but even with the recent New Yorker and other articles he seems like someone who maybe regularly placates people to avoid personal problems and lies to get out of trouble rather than a Machiavellian tech baron.
So, the protection racket is not working? [1] Maybe some folks need to re-think whether this administration is worth "donating" to? [1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openai-exec-becomes-top-trump...
That is why public corruption is such as plague and one of the reasons the US dollar was seen as a safe store of value once.
The thesis is as follows: OpenAI receives funds as a non-profit. Some of those funds are redirected to for profit ventures. Critically, the GM (Altman) of the nonprofit owns shares of the for-profit ventures, that OpenAI funds were redirected into. A regular company could and does invest in any company even when there's a conflict, as long as the conflict is disclosed and the Board votes in favor of it. There's no cr…
The article says the investments were disclosed:
"OpenAI board chairman Bret Taylor defended Altman in a court hearing Monday, testifying that Altman had been “forthright” and “proactive and transparent” about his involvements in other companies. Altman recused himself from recent discussions about a deal between OpenAI and Helion as well, The Wall Street Journal reported."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This story is about congressmen and state attorneys calling for an SEC investigation, not the executive Which was motivated by a WSJ investigation into Sam’s personal dealings https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/chatgpt-openai-ipo-altman-029ae6...
and famously this executive doesn't over-reach to protect "its own"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look around at the country right now
Nothing to do with Altman v Musk. That would be an AI boom that would be going full steam ahead without either of them.
The thesis is as follows: OpenAI receives funds as a non-profit. Some of those funds are redirected to for profit ventures. Critically, the GM (Altman) of the nonprofit owns shares of the for-profit ventures, that OpenAI funds were redirected into. A regular company could and does invest in any company even when there's a conflict, as long as the conflict is disclosed and the Board votes in favor of it. There's no cr…
> The moves follow an April article in The Wall Street Journal that detailed Altman’s efforts to have OpenAI back companies he personally invested in. Sounds a bit like Wework.