Hacker News Reader

Comment by Curosinono | Hacker News Reader

E.H. promised her investors a magic cure -> sharlatan

Sam B. stole money from everyone -> thief

Sam A. did what?

And Musk wanted to do the same thing. Both agreeded, that a non profit will not make enough money to push the frontier. He is only pissed that he didn't get control of openai and he is now pissed again because he apparently should have done the lawsuite a few years back. Despite him having unlimited money and probably very good laywers

I'm not here to defend the richest of the richest, but E.H. and S.B. are complet different storries to OpenAI

View on HN

Non-profits are not the property of their donors, but of the general interest, with obligations to the public. It is part of the legal and social obligations of the legal structure of non-profits.

It wasn't illegal so there is some reason why the USA allowed it.

And as mentioned, they agreeed that they will not get the capital openai needs, so what did the USA people loose? A company which whouldn't have been able to do what they are known for anyway.

Again i'm not protecting the rich, i just don't think there is a real scandal and its not the same as the other 2 the newyorker mentioned

Their stated non-profit goal was to benefit all of humanity. Changing OpenAI to benefit their financial backers in a formal sense could be a loss of nearly unbounded value.

As i wrote in my prev argument, they assumed that as non profit, they wouldt' get the capital needed to even be a frontier lab.

So nothing to loose if their model wouldn't have worked anyway.

And at the current state, its better anyway that China is pushing the non-profit/humantariy aspect of open models.

Which is probably why they created another, for-profit, entity.

You can argue that it's unlikely the for-profit conservatorship of the non-profit is incompatible with that goal, but legally that becomes very much grey area.

> E.H. promised her investors a magic cure -> sharlatan

*charlatan

Reply on news.ycombinator.com