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

OpenAI to remove non-profit control and give Sam Altman equity

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 70 posts

Re: OpenAI to remove non-profit control and give Sam Altman equity

#61

Post by gwern »

dirkc wrote: post #60
elAhmo wrote: post #9

> Since then, OpenAI's board has been refreshed with more tech executives, chaired by Bret Taylor, former Salesforce co-CEO who now runs his own AI startup. Any corporate changes need approval from its nine-person non-profit board. Why would the non-profit board approve a change to a for-profit company? Wouldn't this be against the nature of the non-profit entity that was founded and which they are supposed to govern…

I don't think you can vote to change a non-profit to a for-profit company. Once a non-profit, always a non-profit. There are sort-off loopholes, like changing the name of "Open AI" to something else and selling the name along with the IP to a commercial entity - EdX did this. But it's not really a loophole, since the board would need justify the price the commercial company paid and the money from the sale is still w…

Exactly. The problem here is that OA is too valuable, and the non-profit owns too much of it (ie. all of it). The non-profit owns exactly 100% of the OA for-profit right now, and can cancel the "PPUs" any time it pleases, and if you believe Altman about the agent roadmap, would be required to do so within a few years. Now, given that the PPUs are being raised at a pseudo-marketcap of $150b, we're hearing, and that non-profits are required to sell assets for fair market value, how can the board sell its 100% ownership of the for-profit for anything less than the $150b that the market values that ownership at...? And where does one get $150b, exactly? Even Sam Altman can't pull that off.

So, the whole question has been, how does he figure out how to leave the board with $75b that neither he nor anyone else has?

This is where the rhetoric and preparing the grounds comes in. You can argue that OA is actually worth $0, by saying that it has value only because it is going to keep raising enough cash to reach AGI... but the board remaining in charge + the current cap on raising capital + Altman quitting will destroy that raising ability, rendering OA worthless. (Similar to his threat last year to destroy OA by creating a competitor in MS, and MS then immediately cutting off hardware & capital so the rump OA would starve to death.)

Hence, the board should - nay, is required by their legal & moral duties to the nonprofit - to accept much less than $150b, because whatever that deal is, it's more than $0.

This is of course ridiculous and wrong, but it's not so ridiculous that a board of loyalists can't sign off on it, nor that lawyers can't defend it in court in front of a judge who wants to rule in its favor (because judges will tolerate anything in nonprofits short of gross criminality).

Re: OpenAI to remove non-profit control and give Sam Altman equity

#62

Post by dang »

rightbyte wrote: post #44
benreesman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also find it curious if not distressing that this wasn’t pinned at #1 all day. To be clear: I’m quite sure that @dang is deeply committed to running a clean shop on moderation. But whether something highly unlikely and slightly sensational like a finger on the scales, or the far more likely and utter banal explanation that people in vast numbers see their fates as intertwined with the status quo, the result is the…

If you remember Altmans coup, which was branded as a board coup against him, there were a lot of supporters here on HN trying to manufacture consent.

That's just a function of the HN community having a range of opinions on every topic. "Manufacture consent" is too sledgehammer a phrase for the normal process of people discussing things.

Re: OpenAI to remove non-profit control and give Sam Altman equity

#63

Post by dang »

teleforce wrote: post #26
freetime2 wrote: post #18

Seems like a good time for a rebrand to remove "Open" from the name. Maybe "InevitableAI"?

How this not in the front page of HN is really beyond me. I asked ChatGPT this simple question and the responses are really commendable and a bit hilarious: Prompt: Since OpenAI the owner of the ChatGPT has removed non-profit control of OpenAI and gave Sam Altman equity what is the more appropriate alternative name to OpenAI now? Answers: Given the shift in OpenAI's structure from a non-profit to a more profit-orient…

I'm not entirely sure what happened but in any case it made the frontpage in a different incarnation, as usually happens with major stories:

OpenAI to Become For-Profit Company - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41655954

Re: OpenAI to remove non-profit control and give Sam Altman equity

#64

Post by pnt12 »

tim333 wrote: post #48

That Sam is a shifty one. Here's him 4 months ago: “It's so deeply unimaginable to people to say i don’t really need more money... If I were to say I'm going to try and make a trillion dollars with OpenAI it would save a lot of conspiracy theories” And now having turned OpenAI into closed AI he's trying to give himself $10bn in equity.

Of course he doesn't want the money, he's only getting money to shut down those conspiracy theories.

/s

Re: OpenAI to remove non-profit control and give Sam Altman equity

#65

Post by steeeeeve »

rvz wrote: post #5

Probably now everyone is starting to realize that Sam Altman really is far worse than Elon and everyone was very late to understand this after the coup that happened nearly a year ago. Perhaps this is what Mira, Greg and IIya saw in Sam; his true intentions after that coup. This 'non-profit' / 'for-profit' complication structure + taking capped investment won't be tried again in a very long time after these events.

This isn't the first time it happened. It won't be the last. Heck, it's not even the first time Altman pulled it off.

Re: OpenAI to remove non-profit control and give Sam Altman equity

#66

Post by smsm42 »

pnt12 wrote: post #64
tim333 wrote: post #48

That Sam is a shifty one. Here's him 4 months ago: “It's so deeply unimaginable to people to say i don’t really need more money... If I were to say I'm going to try and make a trillion dollars with OpenAI it would save a lot of conspiracy theories” And now having turned OpenAI into closed AI he's trying to give himself $10bn in equity.

Of course he doesn't want the money, he's only getting money to shut down those conspiracy theories. /s

Well if it turns out to be true, it's not a "conspiracy theory" anymore, so mission accomplished.

Re: OpenAI to remove non-profit control and give Sam Altman equity

#67

Post by hackernewds »

Spacecosmonaut wrote: post #52
jarbus wrote: post #17

This has been an insane, slow, public descent into everything they promised not to do, it’s so crazy to have seen people inside try to stop it

Its a bit much to ask for people, in the face of such exceptional wealth prospects, to stay steadfast in their initial commitment.

It is not much to expect people to be good people.

Re: OpenAI to remove non-profit control and give Sam Altman equity

#69

Post by Raed667 »

e12e wrote: post #59
benreesman wrote: post #14

If Plucky Nonprofit was OAI-1, and Abruptly Serious AI Lab was OAI-2, And Viable Commercial Product was OAI-3, and Scary Brittle Governance With Creepy NSA Ties was OAI-4, then God Emperor of Arrakis is presumably OAI-5. I figured they’d ship GPT-5 to justify OAI-5, but I guess they’ve realized that they now answer to no one on anything in practical terms. That’s terrifying.

Nit; the God Emperor arises long after the Butlerian Jihad banned thinking machines - so it's not a great image for the rise of totalitarian artificial intelligence...

Yeah but he didn't mind using Tleilaxu technology when it suited him

Re: OpenAI to remove non-profit control and give Sam Altman equity

#70

Post by gwern »

gwern wrote: post #61
dirkc wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can vote to change a non-profit to a for-profit company. Once a non-profit, always a non-profit. There are sort-off loopholes, like changing the name of "Open AI" to something else and selling the name along with the IP to a commercial entity - EdX did this. But it's not really a loophole, since the board would need justify the price the commercial company paid and the money from the sale is still w…

Exactly. The problem here is that OA is too valuable, and the non-profit owns too much of it (ie. all of it). The non-profit owns exactly 100% of the OA for-profit right now, and can cancel the "PPUs" any time it pleases, and if you believe Altman about the agent roadmap, would be required to do so within a few years. Now, given that the PPUs are being raised at a pseudo-marketcap of $150b, we're hearing, and that no…

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openais-complex-path-to-becoming...
Post reply on HN