OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by astrange » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 5:47 AM UTC

starchild3001 wrote: post #228

astrange wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-modern_portfolio_theory

I recently downloaded about 10 years of monthly price returns for QQQ, TQQQ, NVDA, GBTC, and a few others. Then I asked ChatGPT and Gemini (separately) to find the portfolio that maximizes an adjusted CAGR — roughly, mean return minus ½ × standard deviation². Result: 70% NVDA, 30% GBTC (Bitcoin), and 0% QQQ or TQQQ. Honestly, not a bad mix — especially for a small, high-risk slice of your portfolio. Next, I compared…

Are those pre or post tax returns? Gold is taxed as a collectible which is pretty bad.

Thinking about it, my recommendation is read:

https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/index/

and then after maxing your 401k, open a Betterment account, and then max your HSA if applicable. The tax savings easily best custom portfolio picking.

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

#242

Post by figassis » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 5:52 AM UTC

Question: what does this mean for trust in any non profit structure if it’s this easy to convert? Why would investors put money in something they will get no returns on, but that the operators can at anytime turn into profits for themselves?

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

#243

Post by chii » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 5:56 AM UTC

jcmontx wrote: post #104

If this happened any non-western country headlines would say "corruption".

It's only corrupt if it's our "enemies" who does it!

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

#244

Post by ashdksnndck » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 5:58 AM UTC

figassis wrote: post #242

Question: what does this mean for trust in any non profit structure if it’s this easy to convert? Why would investors put money in something they will get no returns on, but that the operators can at anytime turn into profits for themselves?

The new nonprofit is getting $130B of OpenAI stock, which is 1000x more than the donations OpenAI received as a nonprofit. IMO the nonprofit donors have a valid complaint that OpenAI is changing the deal anyway, but the numbers seem worth noting.

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

#245

Post by clhodapp » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 6:28 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #234

clhodapp wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> As a member of humanity as a whole, they are supposed to be operating for my benefit 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 o…

It's not that I think they owe me (or any one specific individual) some specific material value, it's that I don't believe they should be allowed to "take the money and run" after amassing it under the guise of being a charity. Their options should be to continue their mission or to donate their assets to other charities that might be able to further their original mission. Anything less is an affront to those that donated, those that the charity was supposed to support (which is everyone), and any customer that believed their dollars were being spent on a product under the management of a charity.

While it's true that we don't tax investments, we do tax gifts past a dollar value threshold, which is what donations become when nonprofit status drops away.

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

#246

Post by antognini » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 6:29 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #188

kelipso wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't recall "everyone" rooting for him when OpenAI board tried to kick him out. Not even on HN.

Around 95% of the OpenAI engineers signed a letter to the board threatening to quit unless he was reinstated.

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

#247

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 6:34 AM UTC

lukebechtel wrote: post #237

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

are you asserting this is the way things should work, or how they do work, or both?

[deleted]

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

#248

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 6:34 AM UTC

lukebechtel wrote: post #237

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

are you asserting this is the way things should work, or how they do work, or both?

> are you asserting this is the way things should work, or how they do work, or both?

How it does and, to a limited degree, how it should.

If you donate to or volunteer for a non-profit, you have non-pecuniary interest in how they are run.

If you're sold a product that's promised to be made in a certain way, you do too. If you paid for--much less used without paying--a service because you thought it was ethical per some definition, but aren't similarly bound in other purchases in your life, or otherwise can't show this is a value you consistently follow (and so, in being denied it here, have been damaged), I'm not sure any functional economy can work where anyone has a free option to take back a purchase--or much less, non-monetary use--at any time in the future because they feel--but can't materially demonstrate--betrayal.

Like, maybe if Stallman used ChatGPT he could credibly claim he wouldn't have used it if it hadn't marketed its claims around goodness. But I'm deeply sceptical a rando has the same standing.

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

#249

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 6:37 AM UTC

terminalshort wrote: post #183

hrimfaxi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't the government do that? Is it because the government created laws that limited its total discretion? That is besides my point. The people allow for corporations to exist is what I was getting at, and in the US businesses incorporate at the state level. So asking why California has a say in the structure of a company incorporated in it seemed odd to me on its face.

> Is it because the government created laws that limited its total discretion? Yes. As you said, "the people allow for corporations to exist," and the same people created the government and allow it to exist. And when those people created that government they created rules that govern what laws the government is allowed to enact. Those rules are known as the constitution. And one of the first rules the people made wh…

> that rule clearly states that the government can't take legal action against a citizen for saying something the government doesn't like. The CA government retaliating against OpenAI for its CEO threatening to leave the state would clearly violate this rule

What? Conspiracy to commit a crime is punishable. If you're credibly threatening to do something that could be unlawful, the state can pursue that. Altman, of all people, is not being punished for his speech. Nor has he any track record of free speech bona fides to stand on.

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

#250

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 6:50 AM UTC

clhodapp wrote: post #245

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a member of humanity as a whole, they are supposed to be operating for my benefit 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 o…

It's not that I think they owe me (or any one specific individual) some specific material value, it's that I don't believe they should be allowed to "take the money and run" after amassing it under the guise of being a charity. Their options should be to continue their mission or to donate their assets to other charities that might be able to further their original mission. Anything less is an affront to those that d…

I agree that the whole thing seems shady. But I'm struggling to identify anyone who was hurt. Vague notions of "everyone" doesn't really pass muster--if we can turn that into trillion dollar companies, we should do that!