zlacker

I mean, the board doesn't have equity and the for-profit subsidiary is profit capped

>>Raston+(OP)
They still stand to benefit personally, do they not?

>>jdthed+l
By what mechanism? 3/4ths the remaining board have no financial interests in OpenAI.

>>cthalu+j3
Personal/moral: "Championing" non-profit after reaping the fruits of massive commercial success

Monetary: Promotions and payouts (now or future)? Equity is not the only way

>>jdthed+34
Is it a massive commercial success? They have received significant funding, and likely have high revenue, but is it profitable? Is it in a position to be profitable? We're not in the world of companies getting decades of runway from VCs anymore, between concerns around a recession (justified or not), higher interest rates, etc.

There's rapidly becoming more and more competitors in this space, as well. OpenAI has a significant first-mover advantage, but I don't know that it is insurmountable, and I doubt investors are confident that it is either. That means they're even less likely to have infinite runway.

So I'm not sure there's personal/moral success at this point in the story for the board to begin with.

Monetary - 3/4ths the board is independent. They are not actually employed by OpenAI. There's nothing to promote them to, and nothing in the charter of the non-profit that would give them payouts.