zlacker

The nonprofit board retains full control, and can only take actions that will further our mission.

As described in our Charter (https://openai.com/charter/): that mission is to ensure that AGI benefits all of humanity.

>>gdb+(OP)
So that is a no then? If the board decides that for AGI to benefit humanity they need more investors, they can just as well remove the cap for a future investor or raise it to 200x.

>>gdb+(OP)
There's no mention of the governing legal framework, I presume it's a US state?

Also, what are the consequences for failing to meet the goals. "We commit to" could really have no legal basis depending on the prevailing legal environment.

Reading pessimistically I see the "we'll assist other efforts" as a way in which the spirit the charter is apparently offered in could be subverted -- you assist a private company and that company doesn't have anything like the charter and instead uses the technology and assistance to create private wealth/IP.

Being super pessimistic, when the Charter organisation gets close a parallel business can be started, which would automatically be "within 2 years" and so effort could then -- within the wording of the charter -- be diverted in to that private company.

A clause requiring those who wish to use any of the resources of the Charter company to also make developments available reciprocally would need to be added.

Rather like share-alike or other GPL-style license that require patent licensing to the upstream creators.

>>gdb+(OP)
But the board already approved 100x, presumably they are free to approve 1000x? Which is to say, there is no new limitation on increasing the cap (ie removal of the power of the board or anyone else to increase the cap)?

>>gdb+(OP)
We the OpenAI board have decided it would benefit all humanity for us to claim 100x profits.