[adventured]

If you're an investor in OpenAI's for-profit unit, the very clear lawsuit target is D'Angelo. His extreme conflict of interest problem is a personal bankruptcy waiting to happen given the value destruction OpenAI has just (probably) suffered. Investors should be promptly slapping a multi billion dollar lawsuit down on the table: resign or else.

Then stop messing around and fully split off the for-profit unit, run by Altman. They're in perpetual conflict. The non-profit can use its ownership stake (liquidate it gradually) for funding for a very long time and can still pursue its mission of safe AGI. It should provide tens of billions of dollars in funding for the non-profit. The for-profit can then be unleashed to fully pursue commercialization related to GPT without hold-backs.

The absurd fantasy of the dual OpenAI missions co-existing in peace needs to die. They can't co-exist peacefully within one body, everything about their requirements to thrive going forward puts them at odds with each other (from speed, to compensation, to funding requirements, to management approach).

[soulofmischief]

Nothing is absurd about expecting a company, run by a group of people, to uphold the values and mission its existence was predicated upon, down to the name of the company itself. Especially in such a short time frame.

[adventured]

Of course it's absurd: it was all a game of playing pretend. That's the fantasy part.

It hadn't been open AI for a long time.

The entity that you're referring to no longer exists at present. They can revive it by splitting these inherently at-conflict entities apart.

With tens of billions in funding via stock liquidation they can go back to pursuing actual open AI and have a lot of money to throw at doing so, without concerns for conflict with a for-profit mission in relation to a funding source.

Today the mission of being open with their AI tech is at conflict with the funding base: GPT commercialization. At least with how they have been operating for years now. There's no fixing that in the current structure.

[robg]

All great points, it’s wild that this small non-profit board had so much power with so little at stake for themselves. That’s a typical feature of a non-profit board, but in this case the entity wasn’t a typical non-profit.

To your points, such a split makes too much sense and the ship has probably sailed when the employees showed they have no loyalty or responsibilities to the organization itself.