[tyre]

Wait, no, not at all. A non-profit shouldn’t have to take the highest bidder regardless. The whole _point_ of a non-profit is to act beyond purely short-term financial gains.

“Elon buying this doesn’t align with the mission” is a completely normal, reasonable, and healthy response for most non-profits.

What’s great is that we don’t need to speculate about a counter factual. He did end up building a chatbot! Whose defining differentiating feature is revenge porn.

[93po]

A non-profit should act in its own individual best interest. If I had a non-profit for sheltering animals and one contractor told me it would cost a million dollars to build a new shelter, and another contractor, conveniently largely owned and controlled by me, said the same shelter would cost $20 million, don't you think there's a problem if you go with the $20 million option? I imagine this scenario is highly illegal.

[achierius]

But the decision is still subject to heavy scrutiny; in fact, more than with normal for profit corporations. It does not seem like the board acted in the best interests of the nonprofit here, they acted in their own.

[senordevnyc]

How did the board personally benefit?

[93po]

How much did people on the board benefit from OpenAI going for-profit? Either directly by owning shares of the new for-profit, or knowing they eventually would, or by business connections to the new for-profit entity? I imagine most or all of them.

[senordevnyc]

Ah, so you have no idea.