> Instead of our current complex capped-profit structure—which made sense when it looked like there might be one dominant AGI effort but doesn’t in a world of many great AGI companies—we are moving to a normal capital structure where everyone has stock. This is not a sale, but a change of structure to something simpler.
One remarkable advantage of being a "Public Benefit Corporation" is this it:
> prevent[s] shareholders from using a drop in stock value as evidence for dismissal or a lawsuit against the corporation[1]
In my view, it is their own shareholders that the directors of OpenAI are insulating themselves against.
https://pdfernhout.net/on-funding-digital-public-works.html#...
"Consider this way of looking at the situation. A 501(c)3 non-profit creates a digital work which is potentially of great value to the public and of great value to others who would build on that product. They could put it on the internet at basically zero cost and let everyone have it effectively for free. Or instead, they could restrict access to that work to create an artificial scarcity by requiring people to pay for licenses before accessing the content or making derived works. If they do the latter and require money for access, the non-profit can perhaps create revenue to pay the employees of the non-profit. But since the staff probably participate in the decision making about such licensing (granted, under a board who may be all volunteer), isn't that latter choice still in a way really a form of "self-dealing" -- taking public property (the content) and using it for private gain? From that point of view, perhaps restricting access is not even legal?"
"Self-dealing might be clearer if the non-profit just got a grant, made the product, and then directly sold the work for a million dollars to Microsoft and put the money directly in the staff's pockets (who are also sometimes board members). Certainly if it was a piece of land being sold such a transaction might put people in jail. But because the content or software sales are small and generally to their mission's audience they are somehow deemed OK. The trademark-infringing non-profit-sheltered project I mention above is as I see it in large part just a way to convert some government supported PhD thesis work and ongoing R&D grants into ready cash for the developers. Such "spin-offs" are actually encouraged by most funders. And frankly if that group eventually sells their software to a movie company, say, for a million dollars, who will really bat an eyebrow or complain? (They already probably get most of their revenue from similar sales anyway -- but just one copy at a time.) But how is this really different from the self-dealing of just selling charitably-funded software directly to Microsoft and distributing a lump sum? Just because "art" is somehow involved, does this make everything all right? To be clear, I am not concerned that the developers get paid well for their work and based on technical accomplishments they probably deserve that (even if we do compete for funds in a way). What I am concerned about is the way that the proprietary process happens such that the public (including me) never gets full access to the results of the publicly-funded work (other than a few publications without substantial source)."
That said, charging to provide a service that costs money to supply (e.g. GPU compute) is not necessarily self-dealing. It is restricting the source code or using patents to create artificial scarcity around those services that could be seen that way.
This is originally from The Art of War.
"Open AI for-profit LLC will become a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)"
followed by: "Profit cap is hereby removed" and finally "The Open AI non-profit will continue to control the PBC. We intend it to be a significant shareholder of the PBC."
Not only is there infinite incentive to compete, but theres decreasing costs to. The only world in which AGI is winner take all is a world in which it is extremely controlled to the point at which the public cant query it.
The first-mover advantages of an AGI that can improve itself are theoretically unsurmountable.
But OpenAI doesn't have a path to AGI any more than anyone else. (It's increasingly clear LLMs alone don't make the cut.) And the market for LLMs, non-general AI, is very much not winner takes all. In this announcement, OpenAI is basically acknowledging that it's not getting to self-improving AGI.
It does have some weasel words around value-aligned and safety-conscious which they can always argue but this could get interesting because they've basically agreed not to compete. A fairly insane thing to do in retrospect.
That's always been pretty overtly the winner-take-all AGI scenario.
OpenAI is capturing most of the value in the space (generic LLM models), even though they have competitors who are beating them on price or capabilities.
I think OpenAI may be able to maintain this position at least for the medium term because of their name recognition/prominence and they are still a fast mover.
I also think the US is going to ban all non-US LLM providers from the US market soon for "security reasons."
Yeah; and:
We want to open source very capable models.
We need to get closer to the norm and give shares of a for-profit to employees in order to create retention.
Please promise to come back to this comment in 2030 and playfully mock me for ever being worried and I will buy you a coffee. If AGI is invented before 2030 please buy me one and let me mock you playfully.
and that makes complete sense if you don't have a lay person's understanding of the tech. Language models were never going to bring about "AGI."
This is another nail in the coffin
Which sounds pretty in-line with the SV culture of putting profit above all else.
It will likely require research breakthroughs, significant hardware advancement, and anything from a few years to a few decades. But it's coming.
ChatGPT was released 2.5 years ago, and look at all the crazy progress that has been made in that time. That doesn't mean that the progress has to continue, we'll probably see a stall.
But AIs that are on a level with humans for many common tasks is not that far off.
― Sun Tzu
Quite the arc from the original organization.
The intersection of the two seems to be quite hard to find.
At the state that we're in the AIs we're building are just really useful input/output devices that respond to a stimuli (e.g., a "prompt"). No stimuli, no output.
This isn't a nuclear weapon. We're not going to accidentally create Skynet. The only thing it's going to go nuclear on is the market for jobs that are going to get automated in an economy that may not be ready for it.
If anything, the "danger" here is that AGI is going to be a printing press. A cotton gin. A horseless carriage -- all at the same time and then some, into a world that may not be ready for it economically.
Progress of technology should not be artitrarily held back to protect automateable jobs though. We need to adapt.
- Superintelligence poses an existential threat to humanity
- Predicting the future is famously difficult
- Given that uncertainty, we can't rule out the chance of our current AI approach leading to superintelligence
- Even a 1-in-1000 existential threat would be extremely serious. If an asteroid had a 1-in-1000 chance of hitting Earth and obliterating humanity we should make serious contingency plans.
Second question: how confident are you that you're correct? Are you 99.9% sure? Confident enough to gamble billions of lives on your beliefs? There are almost no statements about the future which I'd assign this level of confidence to.
Any of the signatories here match your criteria? https://safe.ai/work/statement-on-ai-risk#signatories
Or if you’re talking more about everyday engineers working in the field, I suspect the people soldering vacuum tubes to the ENIAC would not necessarily have been the same people with the clearest vision for the future of the computer.
Does the current AI give productivity benefits to writing code? Probably. Do OpenAI engineers have exclusive access to more capable models that give them a greater productivity boost than others? Also probably.
If one exclusive group gets the benefit of developing AI with a 20% productivity boost compared to others, and they develop a 2.0 that grants them a 25% boost, then a 3.0 with a 30% boost, etc...
The question eventually becomes, "is AGI technically possible"; is there anything special about meat that cannot be reproduced on silicon? We will find AGI someday, and more than likely that discovery will be aided by the current technologies. It's the path here that matters, not the specific iteration of generative LLM tech we happen to be sitting on in May 2025.
It was true before we allowed them to access external systems, disregarding certain rule which I forgot the origin.
The more general problem is a mix between the tradegy of the common; we have better understanding every passing day yet still don't understand exacly why LLM perform that well emergently instead of engineered that way; and future progress.
Do you think you can find a way around access boundaries to masquerade your Create/Update requests as Read in the log system monitoring it, when you have super intelligence?
LLMs are huge pretrained models. The economic benefit here is that you don't have to train your own text classification model anymore. (The LLM was likely already trained on whatever training set you could think of.)
That's a big time and effort saver, but no different from "AI" that we had decades prior. It's just more accessible to the normal person now.
So you don't mind if your economic value drops to zero, with all human labour replaced by machines?
Dependent on UBI, existing in a basic pod, eating rations of slop.
Right now it's operated by a bunch of people who think that you can directly relate the amount of money a venture could make in the next 90 days to its net benefit for society. Government telling them how they can and cannot make that money, in their minds, is government telling them that they cannot bring maximum benefit to society.
Now, is this mindset myopic to everything that most people have in their lived experience? Is it ethically bankrupt and held by people who'd sell their own mothers for a penny if they otherwise couldn't get that penny? Would those people be banished to a place beyond human contact for the rest of their existence by functioning organs of an even somewhat-sane society?
I don't know. I'm just asking questions.
Mostly OpenAI and DeepMind and it stunk of 'pulling up the drawbridge behind them' and pivoting from actual harm to theoretical harm.
For a crowd supposedly entrenched in startups, it's amazing everyone here is so slow to recognise it's all funding pitches and contract bidding.
The "digital god" angle might explain why. For many, this has become a religious movement, a savior for an otherwise doomed economic system.
But OpenAI isn't limited to creating LLMs. OpenAI's objective is not to create LLMs but to create artificial general intelligence that is better than humans at all intellectual tasks. Examples of such tasks include:
1. Designing nuclear weapons.
2. Designing and troubleshooting mining, materials processing, and energy production equipment.
3. Making money by investing in the stock market.
4. Discovering new physics and chemistry.
5. Designing and troubleshooting electronics such as GPUs.
6. Building better AI.
7. Cracking encryption.
8. Finding security flaws in computer software.
9. Understanding the published scientific literature.
10. Inferring unpublished discoveries of military significance from the published scientific literature.
11. Formulating military strategy.
Presumably you can see that a system capable of doing all these things can easily be used to produce an unlimited quantity of nuclear weapons, thus making it more powerful than any nuclear weapon.
If LLMs turn out not to be able to do those things better than humans, OpenAI will try other approaches, sooner or later. Maybe it'll turn out to be impossible, or much further off than expected, but that's not what OpenAI is claiming.
Look forward to re-living that shift from life-changing community resource to scammy and user-hostile
Then the thought came, when will they start showing ads here.
I like to think that if we learn to pay for it directly, or the open source models get good enough, we could still enjoy that simplicity and focus for quite a while. Here’s hoping!
The $20 monthly payment is not enough though and companies like Google can keep giving away their AI for free till OpenAI is bankrupt.
Even if you take him at his word, incentives are hard to ignore (and advertising is a very powerful business model when your goal is to create something that reaches everyone)
1) The Pareto frontier of open LLMs will keep expanding. The breakneck pace of open research/development, combined with techniques like distillation will keep the best open LLMs pretty good, if not the best.
2) The cost of inference will keep going down as software and hardware are optimized. At the extreme, we're lookin toward bit-quantized LLMs that run in RAM itself.
These two factors should mean a good open LLM alternative should always exist, one without ulterior motives. Now, will people be able to have the hardware to run it? Or will users just put up with ads to use the best LLM? The latter is likely, but you do have a choice.
That step, along with getting politicians to pass it, is the only thing that will stop that outcome.
Decades ago I worked for a classical music company, fresh out of school. "So.. how do you anticipate where the music trend is going", I once naively asked one of the senior people on the product side. "Oh, we don't. We tell people really quietly, and they listen". They and the marketing team spent a lot of time doing very subtle work, easily as much as anything big like actual advertisements. Things like small little conversations with music journalists, just a dropped sentence or two that might be repeated in an article, or marginally influence an article; that another journalist might see and have an opinion on, or spark some other curiosity. It only takes a small push and it tends to spread across the industry. It's not a fast process, but when the product team is capable of road-mapping for a year or so in advance, a marketing team can do a lot to prepare things so the audience is ready.
LLMs represent a scary capability to influence the entire world, in ways we're not equipped to handle.
That doesn't mean it has to always be this way, though. Back when I had more trust in the present government and USPS, I mused on how much of a game changer it might be for the USPS to provide free hosting and e-mail to citizens, repurposing the glut of unused real estate into smaller edge compute providers. Everyone gets a web server and 5GB of storage, with 1A Protections letting them say and host whatever they like from their little Post Office Box. Everyone has an e-mail address tied to their real identity, with encryption and security for digital mail just like the law provides for physical mail. I still think the answer is about enabling more people to engage with the internet on their selective terms (including the option of disengagement), rather than the present psychological manipulation everyone engages in to keep us glued to our screens, tethered to our phones, and constantly uploading new data to advertisers and surveillance firms alike.
But the nostalgic view that the internet used to be different is just that: rose-tinted memories of a past that never really existed. The first step to fixing this mess is acknowledging its harm.
The Internet has changed a lot over the decades, and it did used to be different, with the differences depending on how many years you go back.
When we already have efficient food production that drove down costs and increased profits (a good thing), what else is there for companies to optimize for, if not loading it with sugar, putting it in cheap plastic, bamboozling us with ads?
This same dynamic plays out in every industry. Markets are a great thing when the low hanging fruit hasn't been picked, because the low hanging fruit is usually "cut the waste, develop basic tech, be efficient". But eventually the low hanging fruit becomes "game human's primitive reward circuits".
It absolutely did. Steve Wozniak was real. Silicon Valley wasn't always a hive of liars and sycophants.
It was sparked by going to a video conference "Hyperlocal Heroes: Building Community Knowledge in the Digital Age" hosted by New_ Public: https://newpublic.org/ "Reimagine social media: We are researchers, engineers, designers, and community leaders working together to explore creating digital public spaces where people can thrive and connect."
A not-insignificant amount of time in that one-hour teleconference was spent related to funding models for local social media and local reporting.
Afterwards, I got to thinking. The USA spent literally trillions of dollars on the (so-many-problematical-things-about-it-I-better-stop-now) Iraq war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War "According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 including interest."
Or, from a different direction, the USA spends about US$200 billion per year on mostly-billboard-free roads: https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative... "In 2021, state and local governments provided three-quarters of highway and road funding ($154 billion) and federal transfers accounted for $52 billion (25 percent)."
That's about US$700 per person per year on US roads.
So, clearly huge amounts of money are available in the USA if enough people think something is important. Imagine if a similar amount of money went to funding exactly what you outlined -- a free web presence for distributed social media -- with an infrastructure funded by tax dollars instead of advertisements. Isn't a healthy social media system essential to 21st century online democracy with public town squares?
And frankly such a distributed social media ecosystem in the USA might be possible for at most a tenth of what roads cost, like perhaps US$70 per person per year (or US$20 billion per year)?
Yes, there are all sorts of privacy and free speech issues to work through -- but it is not like we don't have those all now with the advertiser-funded social media systems we have. So, it is not clear to me that such a system would be immensely worse than what we have.
But what do I know? :-) Here was a previous big government suggestion be me from 2010 -- also mostly ignored (until now 15 years later the USA is in political crisis over supply chain dependency and still isn't doing anything very related to it yet): "Build 21000 flexible fabrication facilities across the USA" https://web.archive.org/web/20100708160738/http://pcast.idea... "Being able to make things is an important part of prosperity, but that capability (and related confidence) has been slipping away in the USA. The USA needs more large neighborhood shops with a lot of flexible machine tools. The US government should fund the construction of 21,000 flexible fabrication facilities across the USA at a cost of US$50 billion, places where any American can go to learn about and use CNC equipment like mills and lathes and a variety of other advanced tools and processes including biotech ones. That is one for every town and county in the USA. These shops might be seen as public extensions of local schools, essentially turning the shops of public schools into more like a public library of tools. This project is essential to US national security, to provide a technologically literate populace who has learned about post-scarcity technology in a hands-on way. The greatest challenge our society faces right now is post-scarcity technology (like robots, AI, nanotech, biotech, etc.) in the hands of people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity (whether in big organizations or in small groups). This project would help educate our entire society about the potential of these technologies to produce abundance for all."
But once you control a significant enough chunk of money, it becomes clear the pie doesn't get any bigger the more shiny coins you have, you only have more relative purchasing power, automatically making everyone else poorer.
I have not seen anything from sama or pmarca that I would classify as “authoritarian”.
altman building a centralised authority of who will be classed as "human" is about as authoritarian as you could get
You mean, AGI will benefit all of humanity like War on Terror spread democracy?
Altman keeps on talking about AGI as if we're already there.
But reasonable people could argue that we've achieved AGI (not artificial super intelligence)
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/04/o3...
Fwiw, Sam Altman will have already seen the next models they're planning to release
What it really says is that if a user wants to control the interaction and get the useful responses, direct programmatic calls to the API that control the system prompt are going to be needed. And who knows how much longer even that will be allowed? As ChatGPT reports,
> "OpenAI has updated the ChatGPT UI (especially in GPT-4-turbo and ChatGPT Plus environments) to no longer expose the full system prompt or baseline prompt directly."
Can some business person give us a summary on PBCs vs. alternative registrations?
(IANAL but run a PBC that uses this charter[1] and have written about it here[2] as part of our biennial reporting process.)
[1] https://github.com/OpenCoreVentures/ocv-public-benefit-compa...
[2] https://goauthentik.io/blog/2024-09-25-our-biennial-pbc-repo...
Theory: It allows the CEO to make decisions motivated not just by maximizing shareholder value but by some other social good. Of course, very few PBC CEOs choose to do that.
I personally think the conversation, including obviously in the post itself, has swung too far in the direction of how AGI can or will potentially affect the ethical landscape regarding AI, however. I think we really ought to concern ourselves with addressing and mitigating effects that it already HAS brought - both good and bad - rather than engaging in any excessive speculation.
That's just me, though.
If the entrenched giants (Google, Microsoft and Apple) catch up - and Google 100% has, if not surpassed - they have a thousand levers to pull and OpenAI is done for. Microsoft has realized this, hence why they're breaking up with them - Google and Anthropic have shown they don't need OpenAI. Galaxy phones will get a Gemini button, Chrome will get it built into the browser. MS can either develop their own thing , use opensource models, or just ask every frontier model provider (and there's already 3-4 as we speak) how cheaply they're willing to deliver. Then chuck it right in the OS and Office first-class. Which half the white collar world spends their entire day staring at. Apple devices too will get an AI button (or gesture, given it's Apple) and just like MS they'll do it inhouse or have the providers bid against each other.
The only way OpenAI David was ever going to beat the Goliaths GMA in the long run was if it were near-impossible to catch up to them, á la TSMC/ASML. But they did catch up.
The wisest move in the chatbot business might be to wait and see if anyone discovers anything profitable before spending more effort and wasting more money on chat R&D, which includes most agentic stuff. Reliable assistants or something along those lines might be the next big breakthrough (if you ask certain futurologists), but the technology we have seems unsuitable for any provable reliability.
ML can be applied in a thousand ways other than LLMs, and many will positively impact our lives and create their own markets. But OpenAI is not in that business. I think the writing is on the wall, and Sama's vocal fry, "AGI is close," and humanity verification crypto coins are smoke and mirrors.
Personally, deep research and o3 have been transformative, taking LLMs from something I have never used to something that I am using daily.
Even if the progress ends up plateauing (which I do not believe will happen in the near term), behaviors are changing; OpenAI is capturing users, and taking them from companies like Google. Google may be able to fight back and win - Gemini 2.5 Pro is great - but any company sitting this out risks being unable to capture users back from Open AI at a later date.
Most people in society connect AI directly to ChatGPT and hence OpenAI. And there has been a lot of progress in image generation, video generation, ...
So I think your timeline and views are slightly off.
I'd say Chain-of-Thought has massively improved LLM output. Is that "incremental"? Why is that more incremental than the move from GPT-2 to GPT-3? Sure you can say that this is when LLMs first passed some sort of Turing test, but fundamentally there was no technological difference from GPT-3 to GPT-4. In fact I would say the quality of GPT-4 unlocked thousands (millions?) more use-cases that were not very viable with the quality delivered by GPT-3. I don't see any reason for more use-cases to keep being unlocked by LLM improvements.
There is little to no money to be made in GAI, it will never turn into AGI, and people like Altman know this, so now they’re looking for a greater fool before it is too late.
Why does the forum of an incubator that now has a portfolio that is like 80% AI so routinely bearish on AI? Is it a fear of irrelevance?
1: https://www.techpolicy.press/transcript-senate-judiciary-sub...
OpenAI has been on a winning streak that makes ChatGPT the default chatbot for most of the planet.
Everybody else like you describe is trying to add some AI crap behind a button on a congested UI.
B2B market will stay open but OpenAI has certainly not peaked yet.
What network effect does OpenAI have? Far as I can tell, moving from OpenAI to Gemini or something else is easy. It’s not sticky at all. There’s no “my friends are primarily using OpenAI so I am too” or anything like that.
So again, I ask, what makes it sticky?
Facebook wasn't some startup when Google+ entered the scene; they were already cash flow positive, and had roughly 30% ads market share.
OpenAI is still operating at a loss despite having 50+% of the chatbot "market". There is no easy path to victory for them here.
If you look at Gemini, I know people using it daily.
Consumer brand companies such as Coca Cola and Pepsi spend millions on brand awareness advertising just to be the “default” in everyone’s heads. When there’s not much consequence choosing one option over another, the one you’ve heard of is all that matters
My impression is that Claude is a lot more popular – and it’s the one I use myself, though as someone else said the vast majority of people, even in software engineering, don’t use AI often at all.
OpenAI has like 10 to 20% market share [1][2]. They're also an American company whose CEO got on stage with an increasingly-hated world leader. There is no universe in which they keep equal access to the world's largest economies.
[1] https://iot-analytics.com/leading-generative-ai-companies/
[2] https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/stats/openai-statistics....
LLMs themselves aren't the moat, product integration is. Google, Apple and Microsoft already have the huge user bases and platforms with a big surface area covering a good chunk of our daily life, that's why I think they're better positioned if models become a commodity. OpenAI has the lead now, but distribution is way more powerful in the long run.
This moat is non-existent when it comes to Open AI.
And nobody's saying OpenAI will go bankrupt, they'll certainly continue to be a huge player in this space. But their astronomical valuation was based on the initial impression that they were the only game in town, and it will come down now that that's no longer true. Hence why Altman wants to cash out ASAP.
OpenAI trained GPT-4.1 and 4.5—both originally intended to be GPT-5 but they were considered disappointments, which is why they were named differently. Did they really believe that scaling the number of parameters would continue indefinitely without diminishing returns? Not only is there no moat, but there's also no reasonable path forward with this architecture for an actual breakthrough.
Market share of OpenAI is like 90%+.
No more caps on profit, a simpler structure to sell to investors, and Altman can finally get that 7% equity stake he's been eyeing. Not a bad outcome for him given the constraints apparently imposed on them by "the Attorney General of Delaware and the Attorney General of California".
Let's see how this plays out. PBC effectively means nothing - just take a look at Xai and its purchase of Twitter. I would love to listen reasoning explaining why this ~33 billion USD move is benefiting public.
This is already impossibly hard. Approximately zero people commenting would be able to win this battle in Sam’s shoes. What would they need to do to begin to have a chance? Rather than make all the obvious comments “bad evil man wants to get rich”, think what it would take to achieve the mission. What would you need to do in his shoes, aside from just give up and close up shop? Probably this, at the very least.
Edit: I don’t know the guy and many near YC do. So I accept there may be a lens I don’t have. But I’d rather discuss the problem, not the person.
> Sam’s Letter to Employees.
> OpenAI is not a normal company and never will be.
Where did I hear something like that before...
> Founders' IPO Letter
> Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one.
I wonder if it's intentional or perhaps some AI-assisted regurgitation prompted by "write me a successful letter to introduce a new corporate structure of a tech company".
OpenAI admitting that they're not going to win?
> A lot of people around OpenAI in the early days thought AI should only be in the hands of a few trusted people who could “handle it”.
There is a lot to criticize about OpenAI and Sama, but this isn't it.
Whether they are a net positive or a net negative is arguable. If it's a net negative, then unleashing them to the masses was maybe the danger itself.
* The nonprofit is staying the same, and will continue to control the for-profit entity OpenAI created to raise capital
* The for-profit is changing from a capped-profit LLC to a PBC like Anthropic and Xai
* These changes have been at least tacitly agreed to by the attorneys general of California and Delaware
* The non-profit won’t be the largest shareholder in the PBC (likely Microsoft) but will retain control (super voting shares?)
* OpenAI thinks there will be multiple labs that achieve AGI, although possibly on different timelines
They already fight transparency in this space to prevent harmful bias. Why should I believe anything else they have to say if they refuse to take even small steps toward transparency and open auditing?
And the investors wailed and gnashed their teeth but it’s true, that is what they agreed to, and they had no legal recourse. And OpenAI’s new CEO, and its nonprofit board, cut them a check for their capped return and said “bye” and went back to running OpenAI for the benefit of humanity. It turned out that a benign, carefully governed artificial superintelligence is really good for humanity, and OpenAI quickly solved all of humanity’s problems and ushered in an age of peace and abundance in which nobody wanted for anything or needed any Microsoft products. And capitalism came to an end.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-11-20/who-co...
We know it's a sword. And there's war, yadda yadda. However, let's do the cultivating thing instead.
What other AI players we need to convince?
sam altman: "OpenAI is not a normal company and never will be."
Hmmm
More crucially, since OpenAI's founding and especially over the past 18 months, it's grown increasingly clear that AI leadership probably won't be dominated by one company, progress of "frontier models" is stalling while costs are spiraling, and 'Foom' AGI scenarios are highly unlikely anytime soon. It looks like this is going to be a much longer, slower slog than some hoped and others feared.
Then why is it paywalled? Why are you making/have made people across the world sift through the worst material on offer by the wide uncensored Internet to train your LLMs? Why do you have a for-profit LLC operating under a non-profit, or for that matter, a "Public Benefit Corporation" that has to answer to shareholders at all?
Related to that:
> or the needs for hundreds of billions of dollars of compute to train models and serve users.
How does that serve humanity? Redirecting billions of dollars to fancy autocomplete who's power demands strain already struggling electrical grids and offset the gains of green energy worldwide?
> A lot of people around OpenAI in the early days thought AI should only be in the hands of a few trusted people who could “handle it”.
No, we thought your plagiarism machine was a disgusting abuse of the public square, and to be clear, this criticism would've been easily handled by simply requesting people opt-in to have their material used for AI training. But we all know why you didn't do that, don't we Sam.
> It will of course not be all used for good, but we trust humanity and think the good will outweigh the bad by orders of magnitude.
Well so far, we've got vulnerable, lonely people being scammed on Facebook, we've got companies charging subscriptions for people to sext their chatbots, we've got various states using it to target their opposition for military intervention, and the White House may have used it to draft the dumbest basis for a trade war in human history. Oh and fake therapists too.
When's the good kick in?
> We believe this is the best path forward—AGI should enable all of humanity^1 to benefit each other.
^1 who subscribe to our services
Because they're concerned about AI use the same way Google is concerned about your private data.
---
## *What Has Changed*
### 1. *OpenAI’s For-Profit Arm is Becoming a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)*
* *Before:* OpenAI LP (limited partnership with a “capped-profit” model). * *After:* OpenAI LP becomes a *Public Benefit Corporation* (PBC).
*Implications:*
* A PBC is still a *for-profit* entity, but legally required to balance shareholder value with a declared public mission. * OpenAI’s mission (“AGI that benefits all humanity”) becomes part of the legal charter of the new PBC.
---
### 2. *The Nonprofit Remains in Control and Gains Equity*
* The *original OpenAI nonprofit* will *continue to control* the new PBC and will now also *hold equity* in it. * The nonprofit will use this equity stake to fund “mission-aligned” initiatives in areas like health, education, etc.
*Implications:*
* This strengthens the nonprofit’s influence and potentially its resources. * But the balance between nonprofit oversight and for-profit ambition becomes more delicate as stakes rise.
---
### 3. *Elimination of the “Capped-Profit” Structure*
* The old “capped-return” model (investors could only make \~100x on investments) is being dropped. * Instead, OpenAI will now have a *“normal capital structure”* where everyone holds unrestricted equity.
*Implications:*
* This likely makes OpenAI more attractive to investors. * However, it also increases the *incentive to prioritize commercial growth*, which could conflict with mission-first priorities.
---
## *Potential Negative Implications*
### 1. *Increased Commercial Pressure*
* Moving from a capped-profit model to unrestricted equity introduces *stronger financial incentives*. * This could push the company toward *more aggressive monetization*, potentially compromising safety, openness, or alignment goals.
### 2. *Accountability Trade-offs*
* While the nonprofit “controls” the PBC, actual accountability and oversight may be limited if the nonprofit and PBC leadership overlap (as has been a concern before). * Past board turmoil in late 2023 (Altman's temporary ousting) highlighted how difficult it is to hold leadership accountable under complex structures.
### 3. *Risk of “Mission Drift”*
* Over time, with more funding and commercial scale, *stakeholder interests* (e.g., major investors or partners like Microsoft) might influence product and policy decisions. * Even with the mission enshrined in a PBC charter, *profit-driven pressures could subtly shape choices*—especially around safety disclosures, model releases, or regulatory lobbying.
---
## *What Remains the Same (According to the Letter)*
* OpenAI’s *mission* stays unchanged. * The *nonprofit retains formal control*. * There’s a stated commitment to safety, open access, and democratic use of AI.
Is OpenAI making a profit?
I've been feeling for some time now that we're sort of in the Vietnam War era of the tech industry.
I feel a strong urge to have more "ok, so where do we go from here?" and "what does a tech industry that promotes net good actually look like?" internal discourse in the community of practice, and some sort of ethical social contract for software engineering.
The open source movement has been fabulous and sometimes adjacent to or one aspect of these concerns, but really we need a movement for socially conscious and responsible software.
We need a tech counter-culture. We had one once, but now we need one.
But there are still plenty of mission-focused technology non-profits out there. Many of which have lasted decades. For example: Linux Foundation, Internet Archive, Mozilla, Wikimedia, Free Software Foundation, and Python Software Foundation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm also disappointed in the direction and actions of big tech, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss the non-profit foundations. They aren't worth a trillion dollars, however they are still doing good and important work.
This indicates that they didn't actually want the nonprofit to retain control and they're only doing it because they were forced to by threats of legal action.
Threats of legal action are among the only behavioral signals it can act on while staying in its mandate. Others include regulation and the market.
This is all operating as it was designed, by humans, multiple economic cycles ago.
So were do I vote? How do I became a candidate to be a representative or a delegate of voters? I assume every single human is eligible for both, as OpenAI serves the humanity?
free (foss) -> non-profit -> capped-profit -> public benefits corporation -> (you guessed it)1) You're successful.
2) You mess up checks-and-balances at the beginning.
OpenAI did both.
Personally, I think at some point, the AGs ought to take over and push it back into a non-profit format. OAI undermines the concept of a non-profit.
(1) be transparent about exactly which data was collected for the model
(2) release all the source code
If you want to benefit humanity, then put it under a strong copyleft license with no CLA. Simple.
Musk claimed Fraud, but never asked for his money back in the brief. Could it be his intentions were to limit OpenAI to donations thereby sucking the oxygen out of the venture capital space to fund Xai's Grok?
Musk claimed he donated $100mil, later in a CNBC interview, he said $50-mil. TechCrunch suggests it was way less.
Speakingof humanitarian, how about this 600lbs Oxymoron in the room: A Boston University mathematician has now tracked an estimated 10,000 deaths linked to the Musk's destruction of USAID programs, many of which provided basic health services to vulnerable populations. He may have a death count on his reume in the coming year.
Non profits has regulation than publicly traded companies. Each quarterly filings is like a colonoscopy with Sorbonne Oxley rules etc. Non profits just file a tax statement. Did you know the Chirch of Scientology is a non-profit.
He's a symptom of a problem. He's not actually the problem.
The newer version included sponsored products in its response. I thought that was quite effed up.
Key Structure Changes:
- Abandoning the "capped profit" model (which limited investor returns) in favor of traditional equity structure - Converting for-profit LLC to Public Benefit Corporation (PBC) - Nonprofit remains in control but also becomes a major shareholder
Reading Between the Lines:
1. Power Play: The "nonprofit control" messaging appears to be damage control following previous governance crises. Heavy emphasis on regulator involvement (CA/DE AGs) suggests this was likely not entirely voluntary.
2. Capital Structure Reality: They need "hundreds of billions to trillions" for compute. The capped-profit structure was clearly limiting their ability to raise capital at scale. This move enables unlimited upside for investors while maintaining the PR benefit of nonprofit oversight.
3. Governance Complexity: The "nonprofit controls PBC but is also major shareholder" structure creates interesting conflicts. Who controls the nonprofit? Who appoints its board? These details are conspicuously absent.
4. Competition Positioning: Multiple references to "democratic AI" vs "authoritarian AI" and "many great AGI companies" signal they're positioning against perceived centralized control (likely aimed at competitors).
Red Flags:
- Vague details about actual control mechanisms - No specifics on nonprofit board composition or appointment process - Heavy reliance on buzzwords ("democratic AI") without concrete governance details - Unclear what specific powers the nonprofit retains besides shareholding
This reads like a classic Silicon Valley power consolidation dressed up in altruistic language - enabling massive capital raising while maintaining insider control through a nonprofit structure whose own governance remains opaque.
I was trying to put all the text into gpt4 to see what it thought, but the select all function is gone.
Some websites do that to protect their text IP, which would be crazy to me if that’s what they did considering how their ai is built. Ha