zlacker

>>gdb+(OP)
They were able to attract talent and PR in the name of altruism and here they are now trying to flip the switch as quietly as possible. If the partner gets a vote/profit then a "charter" or "mission" won't change anything. You will never be able to explicitly prove that a vote had a "for profit" motive.

Elon was irritated that he was behind in the AI intellectual property race and this narrative created a perfect opportunity. Not surprised in the end. Tesla effectively did the same thing - "come help me save the planet" with overpriced cars. [Edit: Apparently Elon has left OpenAI but I don't believe for a second that he will not participate in this LP]

>>stevie+j9
My reading that the design of this structure is not to require partners to make decisions in the interest of the mission, but to remove incentives for them to make decisions against the interest of the mission. With a cap on returns, there's a point at which it stops making sense to maximize short-term value or reduce expenses, and with the words about fiduciary duty, it becomes defensible to make decisions that don't obviously increase profit. That is, this structure seems much better than the traditional startup structure and I suspect many entities that are currently actual, normal startups would do more good for the world under a structure like this. (Or that many people who are bootstrapping because they have a vision and they don't want VCs to force them into short-term decisions could productively take some VC investment under this sort of model.)

I agree this isn't a non-profit any more. It seems like that's the goal: they want to raise money the way they'd be able to as a normal startup (notably, from Silicon Valley's gatekeepers who expect a return on investment), without quite turning into a normal startup. If the price for money from Silicon Valley's gatekeepers is a board seat, this is a safer sort of board seat than the normal one.

(Whether this is the only way to raise enough money for their project is an interesting question. So is whether it's a good idea to give even indirect, limited control of Friendly AI to Silicon Valley's gatekeepers - even if they're not motivated by profit and only influencing it with their long-term desires for the mission, it's still unclear that the coherent extrapolated volition of the Altmans and Khoslas of the world is aligned with the coherent extrapolated volition of humanity at large.)

>>geofft+0b
If they're willing to make this change, they might be willing to remove the cap in the future when they have something truly marketable.

>>heuris+ae
Even more worrying is the prospect that they'll use their profit to lobby for regulation that aligns with their goals under their "non-profit ethical framework", shutting out any would-be competitors who have a different take. If they get big enough it is inevitable. This is overall a gross move that leaves a seriously bad taste. I hope no one takes their ethical arguments seriously as they pursue this path - doing so will endanger the industry.