Why should it? You can't serve two masters. They claim to serve the master of human-aligned AI. Why would they want to add another goal that's impossible to align with their primary one?
I am anti-capitalism and anti-profit and anti-Microsoft, but I can take a step back and recognize the truth to what’s being said here. They give the context that hundreds of billions are being spent on AI right now, and if OpenAI wants to remain competitive, they need significantly more money than they originally anticipated. They’re recognizing they can’t get this money unless there is a promise of returns for those who give it. There any not many people equipped to fork over $50 billion with zero return and I assume of the very few people who can, none expressed interest in doing so.
They need money to stay competitive. They felt confident they’d be surpassed without it. This was their only avenue for getting that money. And while it would have been more true to the original mission to simply let other people surpass them, if that’s what happens, my guess is that Sam is doing some mental gymnastics as to how now letting that happen and at least letting some part of OpenAI’s success be nonprofit is better than the competition who would have 0% be charitable
They only need the billions to compete with the other players.
The mission was never to stay competitive. The mission was to develop AGI. They need to be competitive if they want to make billions of dollars for themselves and their shareholders; they don't need to be competitive to develop AGI.
"I don't know about you people, but I don't want to live in a world where someone else makes the world a better place better than we do." - Gavin Belson