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

641–650 of 809 posts

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#641

Post by mminer237 »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #301
mminer237 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would think it is legally enforceable, but I suspect Kathy Jennings is the only person who has standing to sue over it.

Elon Musk absolutely has standing, as one of the biggest donors to the nonprofit. I assume he will settle for some ownership in the for-profit, though.

Maybe. In California that has been ruled to not be the case: https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2021/sep/donor-no-stand...

I don't know the laws of Delaware well, but I would be surprised if he has standing even as a donor.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#642

Post by IanCal »

int_19h wrote: post #289
IanCal wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> creating content from that scraping without attributing any of the source material, and arguing that the outcome is completely novel and original is another. That's the business model of lots of companies. Take, collect and collate data, put it in a new format more useful for your field/customers, resell.

Not with copyrighted content, though.

Absolutely with copyrighted content, it just depends on what you're doing with it.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#643

Post by downrightmike »

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."

And that is why SkyNet decided immediately to destroy everyone.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#644

Post by mminer237 »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #231
mminer237 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would think it is legally enforceable, but I suspect Kathy Jennings is the only person who has standing to sue over it.

So perhaps we can start a campaign of writing letters to her? I'm curious about the "fiduciary duty" part. As a member of humanity, it would appear that OpenAI has a fiduciary duty to me. Does that give me standing? Suppose I say that OpenAI compromises my safety (and thus finances) by failing to discuss risks, having a poor safety culture (as illustrated by employee exits), and racing. Would that fly?

Under Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, you have to suffer a concrete, discernible injury. They can have broken their promise to you, but unless you can prove the dollar amount that harmed you, you can't sue.

Even if you donated to them, all states I know of assign sole oversight for proper management of those funds to the state AG. If you donate to a food bank and they use the money to buy personal Ferraris instead of helping the hungry, that's clearly illegal, but you'd be out the money either way, so you wouldn't have standing to sue. The attorney general has to sue for mismanagement of funds. If you feel OpenAI is violating their charter, I would definitely encourage writing to Mrs. Jennings to voice that opinion.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#646

Post by jacobsimon »

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…

My unprofessional take: The SEC is concerned primarily with protecting investors. If anything, changing to a normal for-profit structure and removing the cap on returns would be viewed as more investor/market-friendly than their current structure, which is partly to blame for what unfolded last year.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#648

Post by theGnuMe »

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…

It’s not a public company? Not sure why the sec would get involved.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#649

Post by stackedinserter »

elAhmo wrote: post #553
thesurlydev wrote: post #278

I can't help but wonder if things would be different if Sam Altman wasn't allowed to come back to OpenAI. Instead, the safeguards are gone, challengers have left the company, and the bottom line is now the new priority. All in opposition to ushering in AI advancement with the caution and respect it deserves.

Similar example can be seen with the demise of Twitter under the new owner, which has no safeguards or guardrails - anyone who opposed him is gone and we can see in what state it is now.

In what state is it now?

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#650

Post by apwell23 »

onelesd wrote: post #626
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.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN