zlacker

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+(OP)
That seems to be the general consensus of /r/MachineLearning as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/azvbmn/n_o...

>>stevie+(OP)
No, Elon parted ways with OpenAI some time ago due to differences in opinion over their direction. Looks like we’re starting to learn the details.

>>stevie+(OP)
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.)

>>dcsilv+E1
Didn't know this - thanks for clarifying. I will update my comment if it is picked on further

>>stevie+12
So for some reason you're sure he will participate in OpenAI LP when OpenAI say he's not involved in OpenAI LP? Are they lying?

>>geofft+H1
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.

>>glipti+l4
As an investor. What is not clear about that?

>>stevie+(OP)
> "come help me save the planet" with overpriced cars.

You are helping the planet if those customers would've bought ICE luxury vehicles instead of BEV luxury vehicles. I'm not sure BEV could be done any other way but a top-down, luxury-first approach. So, what exactly is your gripe there? Are you a climate change denier or do you believe that cheap EVs were the path to take?

>>stevie+h7
Ok, so you say they're lying. Got it.

>>stevie+(OP)
What's to stop someone with a vote but not an investment from significantly investing in an AI application (business/policy/etc.) that directly aligns with one of OpenAI's initiatives? The spirit of this LP structure is commendable but it does not do enough to eliminate pure profit-minded intentions.

>>glipti+Q8
OpenAI explicitly says somewhere that Elon's money won't be in the LP, directly or indirectly?

>>stevie+(OP)
> If the partner gets a vote/profit then a "charter" or "mission" won't change anything

(I work at OpenAI.)

The board of OpenAI Nonprofit retains full control. Investors don't get a vote. Some investors may be on the board, but: (a) only a minority of the board are allowed to have a stake in OpenAI LP, and (b) anyone with a stake can't vote in decisions that may conflict with the mission: https://openai.com/blog/openai-lp/#themissioncomesfirst

>>stevie+(OP)
This seems like an unnecessarily cynical take on things. And ultimately, if the outcome is the same, what do you (or anyone) really care if people are making more money from it or if there are commercial purposes?

The OpenAI staff are literally some of the most employable folks on earth; if they have a problem with the new mission it's incredibly easy for them to leave and find something else.

Additionally, I think there's a reason to give Sam the benefit of the doubt. YC has made multiple risky bets that were in line with their stated mission rather than a clear profit motive. For example, adding nonprofits to the batch and supporting UBI research.

Their's nothing wrong with having a profit motive or using the upsides of capitalism to further their goals.

>>stevie+(OP)
If you are trying maximise the benefit to society it may be necessary to crack AGI before Google or some other corporation does. That's probably not going to happen without serious resources.

>>stevie+vb
Quoting from the post you're commenting on:

=====

Who’s involved

* OpenAI Nonprofit’s board consists of OpenAI LP employees Greg Brockman (Chairman & CTO), Ilya Sutskever (Chief Scientist), and Sam Altman (CEO), and non-employees Adam D’Angelo, Holden Karnofsky, Reid Hoffman, Sue Yoon, and Tasha McCauley.

* Elon Musk left the board of OpenAI Nonprofit in February 2018 and is not formally involved with OpenAI LP. We are thankful for all his past help.

* Our investors include Reid Hoffman’s charitable foundation and Khosla Ventures, among others. We feel lucky to have mission-aligned, impact-focused, helpful investors!

>>heuris+R4
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.

>>gdb+rc
> "(b) anyone with a stake can't vote in decisions that may conflict with the mission:"

Will never work in practice

>>jamest+fe
It most certainly is not unnecessarily cynical. The point is that money clouds the decision-making process and responsibilities of those involved - which is the whole ethos that OpenAI was founded on.

>>gdb+rc
People who control the money, generally have a lot of influence, especially when money is running short, regardless if they are on the board or not.