[jprete]

There's absolutely no sense in talking about OpenAI as a nonprofit at this point. The new board and Altman talk about the governance structure changing, and I strongly believe they will maximize their ability to run it as a for-profit company. 100x profit cap is a very large number on an $80 billion valuation.

[didibus]

Ya, it's a joke at this point. Better they just kill the non-profit and stop pretending.

[krick]

Surely they don't do it without a reason. And I don't know what the reason is, but I must assume it's some financial benefit (read, tax evasion), and not our opinion.

[bmitc]

Why doesn't the government do it for them, fining them along the way?

[sanderjd]

I have no idea how it will all play out, but I will be shocked if there is no government investigation coming out of all this.

[bmitc]

Yea, it seems really weird that he and others can just form a non-profit and then later have it own a for-profit with the full intention of turning everything into a for-profit enterprise. Seems like tax evasion and a few other violations of what a non-profit is supposed to be.

[sanderjd]

Yep, if this is an acceptable fact pattern, it seems to create a bunch of loopholes in the legal treatment of non-profits vs for-profits. I think the simpler conclusion is that it actually isn't an acceptable fact pattern, and we'll be seeing fines or other legal action.

[crazydoggers]

But then they’d have to pay taxes, and all those corporations don’t get the juicy tax detections for “donating” to AI tech that will massively increase their profits.

[simbolit]

Change the name while you are at it; the company is not any more "open" than the next shop.

[sanderjd]

Indeed, I think it's the least open of them all?

[jacquesm]

There never was. But they successfully planted the seeds to make people think it is that way.

[93po]

100x is basically just a “they won’t literally take over the economy of the entire planet”