[danaris]

Well, I think that's really the question, isn't it?

Was it a mistake to create OpenAI as a public charity?

Or was it a mistake to operate OpenAI as if it were a startup?

The problem isn't really either one—it's the inherent conflict between the two. IMO, the only reason to see creating it as a 501(c)(3) being a mistake is if you think cutting-edge machine learning is inherently going to be targeted by people looking to make a quick buck off of it.

[baking]

To create a public charity without public fundraising is a no go. Should have been a private foundation because that is where it will end up.

[ToucanLoucan]

> IMO, the only reason to see creating it as a 501(c)(3) being a mistake is if you think cutting-edge machine learning is inherently going to be targeted by people looking to make a quick buck off of it.

I mean that's certainly been my experience of it thus far, is companies rushing to market with half-baked products that (allegedly) incorporate AI to do some task or another.

[danaris]

I was specifically thinking of people seeing a non-profit doing stuff with ML, and trying to finagle their way in there to turn it into a profit for themselves.

(But yes; what you describe is absolutely happening left and right...)

[blackoil]

OpenAI the charity would have survived only as an ego project for Elon doing something fun with minor impact.

Only the current setup is feasible if they want to get the kind of investment required. This can work if the board is pragmatic and has no conflict of interest, so preferably someone with no stake in anything AI either biz or academic.

[baking]

I think the only way this can end up is to convert to a private foundation and make sizable (8 figures annually) grants to truly independent AI safety (broadly defined) organizations.