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

OpenAI to become for-profit company

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 809 posts

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#621

Post by TZubiri »

lolinder wrote: post #251
kweingar wrote: post #219

Can anybody explain how this actually works? What happens to all of the non-profit's assets? They can't just give it away for investors to own. The non-profit could maybe sell its assets to investors, but then what would it do with the money? I'm sure OpenAI has an explanation, but I really want to hear more details. In the most simple analysis of "non-profit becomes for-profit", there's really no way to square it ot…

If the assets were sold to the for profit at a fair price I could see this being legal (even if it shouldn't be). At least in that case the value generated by the non-profit tax free would stay locked up in non-profit land. The biggest problem with this is that there's basically no chance that the sale price of the non-profit assets is going to be $150 billion, which means that whatever the gap is between the valuati…

But what is the non-profit going to do with all that money is the question.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#622

Post by upwardbound »

b800h wrote: post #610
Aeolun wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally shareholders aren’t ok with that.

I was under the impression that in UK law at least, (and obviously not in this case) the trustees of a non-profit would be bound to work in the best interests of that non-profit. And so allowing an asset like this to somehow slip out of their control would be the sort of negligence that would land you in very hot water. I'd be interested to know how this isn't the case here.

I think it is the case here, and I hope Elon Musk persists in his lawsuits about this. As a large donor to the nonprofit in its early days he’s one of the people with the strongest standing to sue / strongest claim for damages.

Obviously Elon is mostly doing this suit as a way to benefit Grok AI but honestly I don’t mind that; competitors are supposed to keep each other in check, and this is a good and proper way for companies to provide checks & balances to each others’ power and it’s one reason why monopolies are bad is the absence of competitor-enforced accountability.

Lawsuit: https://www.reuters.com/technology/elon-musk-revives-lawsuit...

    https://www.reuters.com/technology/elon-musk-revives-lawsuit-against-sam-altman-openai-nyt-reports-2024-08-05/

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#624

Post by klabb3 »

game_the0ry wrote: post #516

OpenAI founded as non-profit. Sam Altman goes on Joe Rogan Podcast and says he does not really care about money. Sam gets caught driving around Napa in a $4M exotic car. OpenAI turns into for-profit. 3/4 of founding team dips out. Sketchy. This whole silicon valley attitude of fake effective altruism, "I do it for the good of humanity, not for the money (but I actually want a lot of money)" fake bullshit is so transp…

I swear the reason why we have so many sociopaths is because how goddamn easy it is to fool people, it’s like stealing candy from kids. Just put on the pseudo intellectual mask and say that you care deeply about grandeur issue X, and people will just believe you at face value, despite your entire track record showing you care only about power, money and status.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#625

Post by ninepoints »

feoren wrote: post #575
pj_mukh wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Occam's razor: I think Sam's personal narrative is the correct one. He built a non-profit that took off in a way that he didn't expect it and now a for-profit is the best way to run the lightning they've caught. In terms of profit, AFAICT, Sam doesn't have designs on building extra large yachts and his own space agency but what he wants is to be the one at the stead of building what he considers is world-changing tec…

Sam: "I'm not in it for the money. I have principles." World: "But what if it was like, a lot of money?" Sam: "Oh alright you convinced me. Fuck my principles."

Anyone who had any respect for Sam "Give me your eyeball data" Altman was always delusional.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#626

Post by onelesd »

ayakang31415 wrote: post #611

About a year ago (I believe), Sam Altman touted his mission to promote safe AI with claims that he has no equity in OpenAI and was never interested in getting any. Look where we are now, well played Sam.

Sam and all the others. At this point, there should be required courses in college to teach this seemingly required skill to future corporate USA.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#627

Post by [deleted] »

upwardbound wrote: post #615
ayakang31415 wrote: post #611

About a year ago (I believe), Sam Altman touted his mission to promote safe AI with claims that he has no equity in OpenAI and was never interested in getting any. Look where we are now, well played Sam.

Does that amount to making a false forward-looking financial statement? (Specifically his claim that he wasn’t interested in getting equity in the future.) This claim he made was likely helpful in ensuring the OpenAI team’s willingness to bring him back after he was temporarily ousted by the board last year for alleged governance issues. (Basically: “don’t worry about me guys, I’m in this for the mission, not persona…

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#628

Post by tedsanders »

jprete wrote: post #488
fakedang wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What were all those open letter and "let's jump to Microsoft with Altman" shenanigans that the employees were carrying out then?

I read at the time that there was massive coordinated pressure on the rank and file from the upper levels of the company. When you combine that with OpenAI clawing back vested equity even from people who voluntarily leave, the 95% support means nothing at all.

Nah, there was not massive coordinated pressure. I was one of the ~5% who didn't sign. I got a couple of late-night DMs asking if I had seen the doc and was going to sign it. I said no; although I agreed with the spirit of the doc, I didn't agree with all of its particulars. People were fine with that, didn't push me, and there were zero repercussions afterward.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#630

Post by Ifkaluva »

pieix wrote: post #604
amelius wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, that's not how trademarks work. You can name your company "ThisProductWillCureYouFromCancer" and the FDA cannot do a thing about it if you put it on a bottle of herbal pills.

Is this true? If so it seems like an underexploited loophole.

It might be technically true, but I don't think it would be true in practice. The difference is that:

- Technically true means you will probably win any lawsuit they bring

- In practice means that they will in fact bring a lot of lawsuits, making it very expensive for you and difficult for you to operate. They will probably find excuses to harass you over every little thing, they will harass you over lots of details that are technically required but rarely enforced in practice. You'll constantly be getting inspected and audited, they will bring lawsuits for other, apparently unrelated things.

Post reply on HN