zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
If OpenAI became a non-profit with this in its charter:

“resulting technology will benefit the public and the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable. The corporation is not organized for the private gain of any person"

I don't think it is going to be hard to show that they are doing something very different than what they said they were going to do.

>>troupe+Kd1
yeah, the lawyers will have the whole case on those two words: "where applicable"

>>cpill+4i1
Yep - the very existence of a widespread concern that open sourcing would be counter to AI safety, and thus not "for the public benefit," would likely it very hard to find OpenAI in violation of that commitment. (Not a lawyer, not legal advice.)

>>btown+Zs1
IANAL but I don't think a court case hinges whether OpenAI is actually open; neither open-source nor closed-source are directly required to fulfill the charter. I think it would be about the extent to which the for-profit's actions and strategy have contradicted the non-profit's goals.