zlacker

> One of the board members even openly admitting that she considered destroying OpenAI a successful outcome of her duty as board member.

I don't see how this particular statement underscores your point. OpenAI is a non-profit with the declared goal of making AI safe and useful for everyone; if it fails to reach that or even actively subverts that goal, destroying the company does seem like the ethical action.

>>Sebb76+(OP)
This just underscores the absurdity of their corporate structure. AI research requires expensive researchers and expensive GPUs. Investors funding the research program don't want to be beholden to some non-profit parent organization run by a small board of nobodies who think their position gives them the power to destroy the whole thing if they believe it's straying from its utopian mission.

>>DebtDe+1b
They don’t “think” that. It does do that, and it does it by design exactly because as you approach a technology as powerful as AI there will be strong commercial incentives to capture its value creation.

Gee wiz, almost… exactly like what is happening?

>>Sebb76+(OP)
Because distroying openai wouldn't make ai safe it would just remove anyone working on alignment from having an influence on it. Microsoft and others are interested in making it benevolent but go along with it because openai is the market leader.