[bmitc]

It's a non-profit. It should have no value aside from the mission. The only reason the employees mobilized in their whining and support of a person, whose only skills seems to be raising money and cult of personality, seems to be so that Altman can complete the Trojan horse of the non-profit by getting rid of it now that it has completed the side quest of attracting investors and customers.

[blackoil]

Which owns a for profit. They would have been left with no employees, no money, no credits, and crown-jewels already licensed to another company. On top of that spending life in minority shareholders lawsuits.

[IgorPartola]

Does the Red Cross have value? Does Wikipedia? Does the Linux Foundation?

I think you are confusing profits, valuations, market cap, and value.

[ffgjgf1]

> value aside from the mission.

And you believe they could’ve achieved their mission with almost zero employees and presumably the board (well… who else?) having to do all the work themselves?

> non-profit by getting rid of it

So the solution of the board was to get rid of both the non-profit and for profit parts of the company?

[justinclift]

> And you believe they could’ve achieved their mission with almost zero employees ...

It's not like they wouldn't be able to hire new employees. ;)

[ffgjgf1]

And do what with them exactly? ; )

[yreg]

How would giving everything to Microsoft help the mission?

It would have been even worse mission-wise.