• Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    investors in OpenAI’s commercial entity were capped at making 100 times their money

    They should never be allowed to call this a “non-profit” (and probably even get tax exemptions?)

    What a dirty lie in the first place!

    • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      No, those were the terms when the company was “for profit.” Now that they’re “nonprofit” the investors can make unlimited profit.

      The billions of dollars the company raised in its last two funding rounds were contingent on successfully removing this limit on investor returns.

    • Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      A maximum of 10,000% profit is “nonprofit”? Any country that allows for something like this is a joke.

    • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Oh, thanks for pointing that out… my head was just going “Fuck Sam Altman … Fuck Sam Altman … Fuck Sam Altman … Fuck Sam Altman … Fuck Sam Altman …” —

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      OpenAI’s commercial entity

      They should never be allowed to call this a “non-profit”

      They never did. The nonprofit parent owned shares in a for-profit subsidiary, which was structured in a way that investors in the for-profit subsidiary could never control the company (the nonprofit would own a controlling share) and had their gains capped at 100x.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        That’s still a common structure used by billionaires to justify reaping millions of dollars in revenue and still claim, “but I own a non-profit”. Also, to say the nonprofit controls the profit part would require the governance and the management hierarchies to be separate to avoid conflict of interests. But this has never been the case. Now they’re becoming a public benefit company, it will be even less the case, with both boards being one and the same. This will effectively keep the good-will façade while allowing them to lift the profit caps for their friends. It’s all PR bullshit.

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    They asked chatGPT for a business plan and it gave them hallucinations and half a business plan for a non-profit coalmining organization.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      That or they have worked out that even if AGI is achievable with the current architecture the existence of R1 and other Chinese models essentially means they will never make a profit at it.

      If they achieve their goal, within 48 hours the open source community will have replicated it.

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Well yeah. DeepSeek destroyed any illusion that they could establish and maintain a monopoly on AI.

  • nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    establish a nonprofit
    get funding from corporate donors
    produce a product
    generate a profit
    ?
    profit

  • HailSeitan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Wasn’t a major tranche of Softbank’s funding contingent on their being able to do this? They might be broke a lot sooner than people thought without it…