zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
There is a lot in here but turning a non-profit into a for-profit definitely should be challenged. Otherwise why wouldn't everyone start as a non-profit, develop your IP, and then switch to 'for-profit' mode once you got something that works? You don't pay income taxes and your investors get write offs.

>>silico+z11
The replies that say "well the profits go to the non-profit, all's good" miss the reality of these high profit nonprofits: the profits invariably end up in the pockets of management. Most of those are essentially scams, but it doesn't mean that OpenAI isn't just a more subtle scam.

The hype and the credulity of the general public play right into this scam. People will more or less believe anything Sam the Money Gushing Messiah says because the neat demos keep flowing. The question is what's we've lost in all this, which no-one really thinks about.

>>dkjaud+K51
If your beef with this structure is that executives get paid handsomely I have bad news about the entire category of nonprofits, regardless of whether they have for-profit arms or not.

>>emoden+P61
Not many people seem to understand this. Here's an example from a previous rabbit hole.

The Sherman Fairchild Foundation (which manages the post-humous funds of the guy who made Fairchild Semiconductor) pays its president $500k+ and chairman about the same. https://beta.candid.org/profile/6906786?keyword=Sherman+fair... (Click Form 990 and select a form)

I do love IRS Form 990 in this way. It sheds a lot of light into this.

>>cobert+ua1
That salary for managing $1B in assets doesn't seem high to me. Am I missing something?

>>jdblai+Ec1
One cool thing is that the these funds don’t actually need active management and that in itself is a form of predatory graft. You could stick them all in a diverse array of index funds and call it a day, as pretty much no fund managers outperform those.

>>buggle+uk1
So don't invest in them. (Actually, I agree with you. I don't invest in them.)