zlacker

>>aarond+(OP)
> Microsoft, which has invested billions in OpenAI, learned that OpenAI was ousting CEO Sam Altman just a minute before the news was shared with the world, according to a person familiar with the situation.

Well this probably disproves the theory that it was a power grab by Microsoft. It didn’t make too much sense anyway since they already have access to tech behind GPT and Microsoft doesn’t necessarily need the clout behind the OpenAI brand.

>>speedy+e3
The "coup by MSFT" conspiracy theory made no sense. Microsoft has an insanely good deal with OpenAI:

    * Exclusive access to resell OpenAI's technology and keep nearly all of that revenue for themselves, both cloud and services
    * Receive 75% of OpenAI's profits up to $1 trillion

All they had to do is not rock the boat and let the golden goose keep laying eggs. A massive disruption like this, so soon after DevDay would not fit that strategy.

My guess at this point is financial malfeasance, either failing to present a deal to the board or OpenAI has been in financial straits and he was covering it up.

>>aduffy+08
OpenAI shouldn't even be making a profit, as it's a 501(c)3 charity. The whole umbrella for-profit corp they formed when they became popular should be illegal, and is clearly immoral.

>>IAmNot+Ra
You have it backwards, the not for profit entity owns the for profit entity. From Wikipedia:

> OpenAI is an American artificial intelligence (AI) organization consisting of the non-profit OpenAI, Inc.[4] registered in Delaware and its for-profit subsidiary corporation OpenAI Global, LLC.[5]

IKEA [0] and Rolex [1] are structured in a similar manner, although different since they’re not US based.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stichting_INGKA_Foundation

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Wilsdorf#Hans_Wilsdorf_...

>>quickt+Ih
Sounds perverse somehow.

>>Sosh10+Rm
It's literally the exact corporate structure of Mozilla.

>>bastaw+xs
Lol, is this supposed to be an argument in favor of that structure?

Have you read any news about Mozilla's budget in the past 10 years or so?

>>morale+3D
> Have you read any news about Mozilla's budget in the past 10 years or so?

Revenue/Expenses/Net Assets

2013: $314m/$295m/$255m

2018: $450m/$451m/$524m

2021: $600m/$340m/$1,054m

(Note: "2017 was an outlier, due in part to changes in the search revenue deal that was negotiated that year." 2019 was also much higher than both 2018 and 2020 for some reason.)

2018 to 2021 also saw their revenue from "Subscription and advertising revenue"— Representing their Pocket, New Tab, and VPN efforts to diversify away from dependence on Google— Increase by over 900%, from $5m to $57m.

https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/who-we-are/public-records/

Seriously, Mozilla gets shat on all the time, presumably because they're one of the few sources of hope and therefore disappointment in an overall increasingly problematic Internet landscape, and I wish they would be bigger too, but they're doing fine all things considered.

Certainly I wouldn't say their problems are due to this particular apsect of their legal structure.

>>Intral+251
>Seriously, Mozilla gets shat on all the time, presumably because they're one of the few sources of hope and therefore disappointment in an overall increasingly problematic Internet landscape, and I wish they would be bigger too, but they're doing fine all things considered.

I think they get shat on all the time because of what you mentioned but also because they consistently fail to deliver a good browser experience for most of their still loyal users.

Most of the people I talk to who still use their product do so out of allegiance to the values of FOSS despite the dog-shit products they keep foisting upon us. You'd think we'd wise up several decades in by now.