On the governance matter, the thesis is a bit more shakey.
> Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley... participating in an... AI governance organization... calls into question the independence of their votes.
> I am not accusing anyone (to be clear, even the Board Directors that I consider conflicted) of having acted subject to conflicts of interest. [AKA "Just Asking Questions" technique]
> If... this act of governance was unwise, it calls into serious question the ability of these people and their organizations... to conduct governance
It seems like the author's real problem isn't any specific conduct by these two board members, but more of a "you got chocolate in my peanut butter" issue.
It does look like governance very much played second fiddle, and the unsurprising outcome of that was that governance hasn't worked very well. I don't know who can rightfully take the blame for that, though, other than the Chair and maybe CEO. If the board wasn't fit, it was their job to fix it.
I read it as saying that they were conflicted because they're both from the "highly ideological" Open Philanthropy; on a small board, having two people ideologically aligned seems precarious.
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-public-pr...
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/eo-operational-req...
"Under the tax law, a section 501(c)(3) organization is presumed to be a private foundation unless it requests, and qualifies for, a ruling or determination as a public charity. Organizations that qualify for public charity status include churches, schools, hospitals, medical research organizations, publicly-supported organizations (i.e., organizations that receive a specified portion of their total support from public sources), and certain supporting organizations."
Edit: Looking at the IRS determination letter from November 3, 2016, OpenAI was organized as a public charity under 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) "Organizations Receiving Substantial Support from a Governmental Unit or from the General Public"
Their last 990 form, filed November 15, 2021, for the calendar year 2020, shows total support over the past 5 years (2016-2020) of $133M, only $41M of which was individual donations of over 2% ($2.6M) so they easily met the 5-year public support test.
It’s not a business. It’s not competing for business. It’s a charity.
Like if you’re on the board of a charity fighting cancer is it a conflict to be on a board of another charity fighting AIDS? Or also part of a for profit company fighting cancer?
Of course not. You’d have a conflict of interest if you had a relationship that was opposed to the charity’s mission like a tobacco company, or if you were personally profiting off your role with the charity.
The post here doesn’t articulate why these are conflicts of interest.
This thread and all the other 15 threads about all this start with the tacit assumption that OpenAI is a high growth tech company, with investors and customers and founders and so on.
It’s not. It’s a charity.
Total support includes over $70M in other income in 2018 and 2019 which is missing the required explanation in the 990's. In other words, out of the $92M in public support, $70M is unexplained other income.
Also, Open Philanthropy pledged $30 million in 2017 ($10 per year for 2017-2019) which is considered public support since they are a public charity. However that is more than the $22 in true public support that was reported. Perhaps they didn't complete the pledge.
Ever seen a Catholic hospital with a Satan worshiper on the board?
If the mission of OpenAI and its reason for being created is to make sure AGI is kept in the public trust and not walled off by commercial forces then you’re not going to want people believing the opposite of that.