171–180 of 359 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they avoid billions of tax on nonprofit status, then magically get to keep it all when they are for-benefit? How about no, fuck you, dissolve?
I mean, OpenAI has never been profitable. If anything, they are insanely unprofitable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you say so? They’re burning cash and don’t currently have a viable path to profitability. Sure they have millions of MAU but not many paying ones.
Look at all the companies that have 'burned cash' with no viable path to profitability over the last 20 years. The good ones outlive that criticism, easily. Think Uber, etc. They clearly see a path to profitability and they have plenty of room to experiment here with what works. With new partnerships and dependencies, they won't run out of cash for a long time.
They definitely have a strong consumer brand so it’s not like they’re going to disappear, but I understand the bear case.
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.
Because of the unusual history of OpenAI, the Government had far more of a say than normal for a company. Remember, OpenAI was originally created as a California non-profit (a charity doing work to create a better AI future). As a charity, it doesn't have to pay the same taxes as it would as a for-profit company, but in exchange it has more rules it needs to follow. And then it released ChatGPT, it exploded in value,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not when the AG sues the board and Sam for all the violations that happened around his ouster. The board isn't independent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
There is no constitutional right to incorporate. Theoretically states could stop it at any time. Although they would still have to honor corporations formed in other states so it’s of limited effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This is the guy who had everyone here rooting for him when the OpenAI board tried to kick him out. Which was almost certainly the result of a very successful PR campaign carried out by him. He's not really comparable with Jobs. This guy is a politician and Jobs was a product guy.
"This is the guy who had everyone here rooting for him when the OpenAI board tried to kick him out."
Finally... oh this is just funny. Who rooted for S Jobs when he was kicked out of Apple, and cheered for him on his return?
.....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
>The government can’t just stop letting businesses incorporate because it doesn’t like how a county voted. The government can revoke a corporation's charter at any time it desires to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The workers and supporters who were taken by this idealistic vision I haven’t heard from any of the workers. Why are people white-knighting for them? My hot take is that they don’t mind being able to afford a house (or more) for their efforts. Where’s the outraged employees in this conversation? As for “supporters,” what does that mean? People who watch from the sidelines and never actually contributed don’t usuall…
Donors get a say, did donors get any stock? Its very ugly when you built your for profit by stealing donations from a non-profit, people can condemn that even if they themselves didn't personally lose money similarly to how we can condemn companies abusing people even if we didn't work there.
But did regular folks donate? Otherwise it seems people are outraged that their hypothetical donations were misused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I am understanding things correctly, OpenAI could leave in the future - but CA can’t retroactively block the conversion in that case.
Yup, but the IPO will still have happened in CA, and there's going to be a tax windfall from that. It's about a moment in time, not an "in perpetuity" agreement.