zlacker

So who governs the board? Or who "owns" the company?

>>hskali+(OP)
In a 501.3c I think the board is the top. From what I understand they’re usually funded through grants that have requirements that need to be met for each disbursement. If you fail then the money stops but there’s no “firing” the board they just stop getting funds.

>>hskali+(OP)
First, the for-profit subsidiary is fully controlled by the OpenAI Nonprofit. We enacted this by having the Nonprofit wholly own and control a manager entity (OpenAI GP LLC) that has the power to control and govern the for-profit subsidiary.

Second, because the board is still the board of a Nonprofit, each director must perform their fiduciary duties in furtherance of its mission—safe AGI that is broadly beneficial. While the for-profit subsidiary is permitted to make and distribute profit, it is subject to this mission. The Nonprofit’s principal beneficiary is humanity, not OpenAI investors.

Third, the board remains majority independent. Independent directors do not hold equity in OpenAI. Even OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, does not hold equity directly. His only interest is indirectly through a Y Combinator investment fund that made a small investment in OpenAI before he was full-time.

https://openai.com/our-structure

>>milksh+O
Can you explain the third point a little more? If Altman has no meaningful economic interest in the company, what was his motivation for being involved at all? Why did he choose to spend his time this way?

I'm aware that Altman has made the same claim (close to zero equity) as you are making, and I don't see any reason why either of you would not be truthful, but it also has always just seemed very odd.

>>fullad+O3
Ideology

>>milksh+O
This is the weirdest company equity structure I've ever heard of.

No wonder this is causing drama.

>>fullad+O3
> If Altman has no meaningful economic interest in the company, what was his motivation for being involved at all? Why did he choose to spend his time this way?

Not everything is about money. He likely just likes the idea of making AI.

>>echelo+q5
Mozilla is somewhat similar, it's a non-profit that owns a for-profit entity.

>>satvik+Y5
And given that FireFox isn't exactly gaining marketshare you can see how well that works for them.

>>hskali+(OP)
No one governs the board of a nonprofit, exactly. In this case, it sounds like Sam and his allies are trying to exert pressure on the board by threatening crippling resignations. This puts the board in the position of choosing between pursuing its mission without certain employees, or pursuing business plans that do not align as well with its mission, but with the full complement of employees.

It's a tricky situation (and this is just with a basic/possibly-incorrect understanding of what is going on). I'm sure it's much more complicated in reality.

>>jacque+8b
A non profit likely doesn’t prioritize growth.

>>desert+Oe
At least Mozilla didn't try to abuse congress to achieve regulatory capture.

>>echelo+q5
And then there's IKEA

>>desert+Oe
That may be so, but it also probably shouldn't let its flagship fundraising entity wither.

>>Keyfra+Li
And Novo Nordisk, Rolex, Heineken, Bose, and the NFL.

>>satvik+U5
Or be the public face of making the AI along with the power and control from that.