This entire saga is really an example of the absurdity of non-profits and philanthropy in general.
The only difference between nonprofit and for-profit entities is that nonprofits divert their profits to a nebulous “cause”, with the investors receiving nothing, while for-profits can distribute profits to their funders.
Other than that, they are free to operate identically.
Generally, entities subject to competitive pressures and with incentives for performance are much better at “benefitting humanity.” Therefore, non-profit status really only makes sense when, one, a profitable enterprise oriented around the intended result isn’t viable (e.g., conservation) or two, there’s a stakeholder that we’ve decided ought to be sheltered from the dynamics of private enterprise, e.g, university students or neutral public broadcasters.
But even in these cases, the non-profit entities basically behave like profit-oriented companies, because their goal is still profitability, just without a return to investors.
OpenAI as a nonprofit would behave the exact same way. There’s no law that the models would have to be open. They’d still be making closed models, charging users, and paying massive salaries. Literally the only difference is that they wouldn’t be able to return money to their investors, and therefore have a much harder time attracting investors, and therefore be less equipped to accomplishing their goal of developing powerful AI.
The irony is that nonprofits are usually only good for things that make for shitty businesses, and things that make shitty businesses usually aren’t that beneficial to humanity. As soon as something becomes really good at what it does, for-profit status makes sense.
What this means, imo, is that most philanthropy dollars are wasted and we would be much better off if they were invested instead. The irony is that this is the point of much philanthropic giving - it ends up being a game of how much money you can burn on nothing, a crass status symbol.