zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
Allowing startups to begin as non-profits for tax benefits, only to 'flip' into profit-seeking ventures is a moral hazard, IMO. It risks damaging public trust in the non-profit sector as a whole. This lawsuit is important

>>therei+4H
I completely agree. AGI is an existential threat, but the real meat of this lawsuit is ensuring that you can't let founders have their cake and eat it like this. what's the point of a non-profit if they can simply pivot to making profit the second they have something of value? the answer is that there is none, besides dishonesty.

it's quite sad that the American regulatory system is in such disrepair that we could even get to this point. that it's not the government pulling OpenAI up on this bare-faced deception, it's a morally-questionable billionaire

>>permo-+IQ
Most people simply don't understand what non profit means. It doesn't and never meant the entity can't make money. It just means that it can't make money for the donors.

Even with open AI, there is a pretty strong argument that donors are not profiting. For example, Elon, one of the founders and main donors won't see a penny from OpenAI work with Microsoft.

>>s1arti+DY
what do you mean by "make money"? do you mean "make profit"? or do you mean "earn revenue"?

if you mean "make profit", then no, that is simply not true. they have to reinvest the money, and even if it was true, that the government is so weak as to allow companies specifically designated as "non-profit" to profit investors - directly or indirectly - would simply be further proving my point.

if you mean "earn revenue", I don't think anyone has ever claimed that non-profits are not allowed to earn revenue.