231–240 of 359 posts
IPO is to leave someone holding the bag, right? The narrative has really changed from AGI, the most consequential technology, blabla. If I had that I would keep it private. If I wanted to cash out, I’d do an IPO. Is there a narrative that doesn’t make it seem like pump and dump?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In any negotiation, you need to understand what leverage either side has. In this case, CA could block the conversion, and OpenAI could leave California. Both are possible but extremely unlikely outcomes! So the whole point is to take these unlikely outcomes to the table, negotiate in good faith, and come out with an agreement. So California needs to believe that OpenAI will stay in California just as much as OpenAI…
If I am understanding things correctly, OpenAI could leave in the future - but CA can’t retroactively block the conversion in that case.
1. They're guaranteed to have an engineering office in the SF Bay. Not many of those folk will agree to relocate to Texas/Miami.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> workers and supporters who were taken by this idealistic vision The only people who can claim harm are donors and workers who actually left, e.g. Murati. "Supporters" aren't stakeholders in any material sense.
What about me, a random person? As stated in their foundational legal filings, the primary activity of OpenAI is supposed to be described as: OpenAI, Inc. ("OpenAI") is a nonprofit artificial intelligence ("AI") scientific research organization. Its goal is to engage in research activities that advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to gener…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> workers and supporters who were taken by this idealistic vision The only people who can claim harm are donors and workers who actually left, e.g. Murati. "Supporters" aren't stakeholders in any material sense.
What about me, a random person? As stated in their foundational legal filings, the primary activity of OpenAI is supposed to be described as: OpenAI, Inc. ("OpenAI") is a nonprofit artificial intelligence ("AI") scientific research organization. Its goal is to engage in research activities that advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to gener…
No. The common good refers to “what is shared and beneficial for all or most members of a given community” [1]. There is no individual claim to benefit.
You can feel misled. Sort of like when a visionary promises something you want and then fails to deliver. But that doesn’t mean you were materially misled, which means you aren’t owed anything.
> they should have been paying taxes on every dollar they brought in
We don’t tax investment in America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people aren't even on the same page as to what the board is supposed to be independent of In the U.S. they absolutely are. The SEC defines independent directors [1]. If the majority of a (Delaware corporation's) Board isn't independent, it opens up the company and even individual Board members to heightened scrutiny by the courts [2]. [1] https://www.skadden.com/-/media/files/publications/2022/02/t... [2] https://w…
You link to a skadden doc, not an SEC rule, and in that doc the first words are: "Independence is neither a fixed condition nor a universal status for all purposes. " and goes on to talk about how complicated it is to even define and how it depends on who is defining it. Your document makes my exact point, not yours. You are out of your depth.
This is true of all law. That doesn’t mean “people aren't even on the same page as to what” it means.
> Your document makes my exact point, not yours. You are out of your depth
It doesn't and probably not. How many boards have you been on? Public companies? Non-profit? Have you litigated a shareholder lawsuit under Delaware law?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This guy is a politician and Jobs was a product guy They're both excellent marketers.
Not at all. When people say this statement about Jobs, it tells me how little they know about the man. S Jobs was a clinical and clear communicator. Altman in comparison? Lmao.
Going to bet I’ve met them both more times than you have.
Neither man was or is an archetype.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
choosing whether to use, or advocate for, a company's services is a form of support
> choosing whether to use, or advocate for, a company's services is a form of support Sure. But if the services are rendered, the ideology is orthogonal. For the slim minority of uncompromising zealots for whom it is not, damages can be quantified and paid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's books written about the Bay Area and the factors that make (or made) it uniquely suited for developing new technologies. There's even college courses about it. Some of it's surely provincial fluff, but it's undeniable that California has been an essential incubator for a whole series of world-changing, fortune-making technologies.
I don't want to downplay the network effects here, but it's in CA entirely by coincidence. SV is in CA because William Shockley's family is there, which is why he founded Shockley Semiconductor there. It could have been somewhere else. The 2nd largest tech hub is in Seattle. It's there because that's were Bill Gates is from. Is SF the best place to start a startup if you want in office talent in 2025. 100% yes, but t…
I think you’re wrong. But that’s irrelevant. The fact that it exists now is what gives it staying power. One of the surest bets I’ve seen in seed and Series A investing is when a market has one or two competitors in a cluster and the rest outside. The insiders win. Always. It’s the easiest bulldozing strategy that exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's books written about the Bay Area and the factors that make (or made) it uniquely suited for developing new technologies. There's even college courses about it. Some of it's surely provincial fluff, but it's undeniable that California has been an essential incubator for a whole series of world-changing, fortune-making technologies.
I don't want to downplay the network effects here, but it's in CA entirely by coincidence. SV is in CA because William Shockley's family is there, which is why he founded Shockley Semiconductor there. It could have been somewhere else. The 2nd largest tech hub is in Seattle. It's there because that's were Bill Gates is from. Is SF the best place to start a startup if you want in office talent in 2025. 100% yes, but t…
Silicon Valley won out because the CA constitution explicitly prohibits non-competes (which MA allows), leading to more rapid innovation. Very likely the infamous Traitorous Eight who left Shockley Semiconductor to found Fairchild could not have done that if noncompetes could be enforced.
Can someone explain to me why California would believe Sam Altman plans to stay in California? This is a weak handshake agreement that could easily be flipped post IPO. The very flip from non-profit to IPO shows he will do what it takes for OpenAI to "succeed", so why would the geographical location be any more permanent than corporate structure. This isnt a diss to Sam either, it just shows he is motivated by whatev…
Can someone explain to me how staying in CA has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not they IPO? Because it seems like it should have absolutely nothing to do with it. (Linked article is a paywall, so I can't read it.)
OpenAI needs to convert to a C-corp in order to IPO.
OpenAI needs the CA Attorney General's approval to convert a LLC into a C-Corp because the LLCs is headquartered in CA and incorporated with many CA laws.
So the article is making the point that OpenAI likely got the CA Attorney General's approval for the conversion because they promised to stay in CA (whether or not that's actually true).
(or support journalism and pay to read the article)