OpenAI to remove non-profit control and give Sam Altman equity

Excuse me but what sort of bullshit is this?

Anyone with sufficient intellectual power to grok building AI must be fully aware of the monetization value of the same. If you are navel gazing over AIG taking over humanity you must first step through the stage were capital and AI couple up.

So it is not too much to ask since others who also were aware of the inherent unwanted social distortions that was entirely predictable were relying on these individuals and "non-profit" organizations to actually live up to their claims.

As it is, it seems like a thinly disguised propaganda to recruit and benefit from altruistic and capable workers in the field to then have Sam Altman (and whoever is behind him $$$) to parachute and take over and say "oh well, you can'tn expect people to be truthful and have principles! What are ya, a chump?"

It is not much to expect people to be good people.

Yeah but he didn't mind using Tleilaxu technology when it suited him

No conflict, no interest

> In May 2018, he became head of the National Security Agency, the Central Security Service and the United States Cyber Command.

Exactly. The problem here is that OA is too valuable, and the non-profit owns too much of it (ie. all of it). The non-profit owns exactly 100% of the OA for-profit right now, and can cancel the "PPUs" any time it pleases, and if you believe Altman about the agent roadmap, would be required to do so within a few years. Now, given that the PPUs are being raised at a pseudo-marketcap of $150b, we're hearing, and that non-profits are required to sell assets for fair market value, how can the board sell its 100% ownership of the for-profit for anything less than the $150b that the market values that ownership at...? And where does one get $150b, exactly? Even Sam Altman can't pull that off.

So, the whole question has been, how does he figure out how to leave the board with <50% ownership (preferably much less than, even 0%), in a way which passes the legal sniff test so the deal goes through, but which doesn't sacrifice >$75b that neither he nor anyone else has?

This is where the rhetoric and preparing the grounds comes in. You can argue that OA is actually worth <<$150b, maybe even as low as $0, by saying that it has value only because it is going to keep raising enough cash to reach AGI... but the board remaining in charge + the current cap on raising capital + Altman quitting will destroy that raising ability, rendering OA worthless. (Similar to his threat last year to destroy OA by creating a competitor in MS, and MS then immediately cutting off hardware & capital so the rump OA would starve to death.)

Hence, the board should - nay, is required by their legal & moral duties to the nonprofit - to accept much less than $150b, because whatever that deal is, it's more than $0.

This is of course ridiculous and wrong, but it's not so ridiculous that a board of loyalists can't sign off on it, nor that lawyers can't defend it in court in front of a judge who wants to rule in its favor (because judges will tolerate anything in nonprofits short of gross criminality).

> a name like "AltmanAI" could be seen as more reflective of its current leadership and business model

Damn, that's harsh. And Musk said it cannot joke.

I also find it curious if not distressing that this wasn’t pinned at #1 all day. To be clear: I’m quite sure that @dang is deeply committed to running a clean shop on moderation.

But whether something highly unlikely and slightly sensational like a finger on the scales, or the far more likely and utter banal explanation that people in vast numbers see their fates as intertwined with the status quo, the result is the same: on some deep institutional level HN is never going to hold Altman to account.

So the question becomes, what authority handles the cases the community can’t? On paper that’s regulators and legislators. Those folks ostensible and actual missions aren’t identical, and differ more with time, but they intersect at “prevent would-be autocrats being so brazen as to provoke de facto revolt”.

The public doesn’t hate Big Tech generally and its sociopath fringe specifically enough to make it a true wedge issue yet, but it’s trending that way.

I’d go so far as to say that most almost anyone breathing the Bay air isn’t capable of truly internalizing how deeply the general public loathes the modern Valley machine: it’s dramatically more than Wall St at any time.

It’s getting even trickier than usual to predict which historical social norms are still bright lines, but “profiting personally via using a charity as a vehicle for fraud” is still putting popular people in prison with bipartisan support.

And Altman isn’t popular even here. He’s feared here, but loved almost nowhere.

I'm not entirely sure what happened but in any case it made the frontpage in a different incarnation, as usually happens with major stories:

OpenAI to Become For-Profit Company - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41655954

Well if it turns out to be true, it's not a "conspiracy theory" anymore, so mission accomplished.

Yes. We used those bombs for evil beyond our comprehension.

I encourage all Americans to further research Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our propaganda has told us our war crimes were completely justified, but a more neutral historical analysis reveals this isn't the case.

what does that mean?

Not sure, but HN might down weight reuters due to paywall, and this story seems to be a Reuters-exclusive.

It's probably because of the poorly-designed "flamewar detector" that censors posts if they are upvoted/downvoted too quickly. @dang explained it to me a few weeks ago[1] on another YC-related post that conveniently got scrubbed from the front page.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41510285

I see what you mean, but at the same time there is a value in this being discussed on its own. The celebrity gossip story is currently covering up the actual important news. (Yeah, I'll go with with that conspiracy theory, also known as a classic PR move.)

There is a New York Times article that states Mira wrote a memo to the board