“Microsoft has assured us that there are positions for all OpenAl employees at this new subsidiary should we choose to join.”
https://www.levels.fyi/blog/openai-compensation.html
https://images.openai.com/blob/142770fb-3df2-45d9-9ee3-7aa06...
Microsoft can absorb all the employees and switch them into the new AI subsidiary which basically is an acqui-hire without buying out everyone else's shares and making a new DeepMind / OpenAI research division inside of the company.
So all along it was a long winded side-step into having a new AI division without all the regulatory headaches of a formal acquisition.
Far from certain. One, they still control a lot of money and cloud credits. Two, they can credibly threaten to license to a competitor or even open source everything, thereby destroying the unique value of the work.
> without all the regulatory headaches of a formal acquisition
This, too, is far from certain.
This too is far from certain. The funding and credits was at best tied to milestones, and at worst, the investment contract is already broken and msft can walk.
I suspect they would not actually do the latter and the ip is tied to continual partnership.
But stranger things have happened. One day I may be very very VERY surprised.
Microsoft is a substantial shareholder (49%) in that for-profit subsidiary, so the value of Microsoft's asset has presumably reduced due to OpenAI's board decisions.
OpenAI's board decisions which resulted in these events appear to have been improperly conducted: Two of the board's members weren't aware of its deliberations, or the outcome until the last minute, notably the chair of the board. A board's decisions have legal weight because they are collective. It's allowed to patch them up after if the board agrees, for people to take breaks, etc. But if some directors intentionally excluded other directors from such a major decision (and formal deliberations), affecting the value and future of the company, that leaves the board's decision open to legal challenges.
Hypothetically Microsoft could sue and offer to settle. Then OpenAI might not have enough funds if it would lose, so might have sell shares in the for-profit subsidiary, or transfer them. Microsoft only needs about 2% more to become majority shareholder of the for-profit subsidiary, which runs ChatGPT sevices.
The point here is that if a country collapses, then you got bigger problems than the loss of whatever stored currency you got. Even if your money is in the hypothetically useful crypto, you got far bigger problems that the money you own is useless to you, you need to survive.
But aside from that extreme scenario, money is not the same thing.
Another way to think of it:
There is nothing in the world that would prevent the immediate collapse of crypto if everyone who owns it just decided to sell.
If everyone in the world stops accepting the US Dollar, the US can still continue to use it internally and manufacture goods and such. It'll just be a collapse of trade, but then even in that scenario people can just exchange the dollar locally for say gold, and trade gold on the global market. So the dollar has physical and usable backing. Meanwhile crypto has literally nothing.
Bitcoin has nothing in and of itself.
Also private currency like script was awful, please don't take the worst financial examples in history and claim that bitcoin is similar as an argument as to why it is valid.
I don't understand what is "in and of itself" in an ordinary currency of an ordinary, small country.
> INTERNAL economical crisis is what causes the collapse of currency
Which is why it is very unlikely to happen with bitcoin.
> But just because the rest of the world doesn't recognize it, doesn't mean it is worthless, it simply converts.
Can't you say exactly the same about bitcoin?
