Hmm, fair points, especially on there not being a strict norm for charities. Thanks for taking more time to clarify.
I’d say we disagree about the following somewhat indeterminate points:
1. Whether OpenAI has/could-have-had staying power without raising immense amounts of venture capital. I will readily admit that they’ve gone so far down this road that they are now somewhat trapped by their massive investments and contracts, not to mention losing almost all their top researchers.
2. Whether the people in charge of this deal can be trusted to propose a fair outcome for the charity other than “their mission ineffably lives on in us” (and as a corollary, whether a fair outcome is likely).
3. Whether the private technical assets of OpenAI (GPT, DALLE, and Sora) are meaningfully unique in their potential for impact, knowing what the public knows in the current moment — which I will admit is far from the complete competitive picture.
4. Whether OpenAI’s mission could be meaningfully achieved by passing out grants to a diverse body of scientists.
I’d be happy to “debate” (lol) any of those particulars if you want, but I think it’s otherwise best to leave it at “we assess the known facts differently”. If we let some time pass, that’ll at least settle question 2…
> 2. Whether the people in charge of this deal can be trusted to propose a fair outcome for the charity other than “their mission ineffably lives on in us” (and as a corollary, whether a fair outcome is likely).
Since Sam Altman is on the board of OpenAI Inc, I expect this deal will be under extreme scrutiny for self dealing. He has flown under the radar so far by not taking any equity but this changes the second he does (IANAL). California, Delaware, and the feds will be looking closely at the deal.
I don't think the danger for OpenAI the charity is as great as people make it out to be. They'll be able to do a lot more than hand out grants with an 11 figure endowment.
I’d say we disagree about the following somewhat indeterminate points:
1. Whether OpenAI has/could-have-had staying power without raising immense amounts of venture capital. I will readily admit that they’ve gone so far down this road that they are now somewhat trapped by their massive investments and contracts, not to mention losing almost all their top researchers.
2. Whether the people in charge of this deal can be trusted to propose a fair outcome for the charity other than “their mission ineffably lives on in us” (and as a corollary, whether a fair outcome is likely).
3. Whether the private technical assets of OpenAI (GPT, DALLE, and Sora) are meaningfully unique in their potential for impact, knowing what the public knows in the current moment — which I will admit is far from the complete competitive picture.
4. Whether OpenAI’s mission could be meaningfully achieved by passing out grants to a diverse body of scientists.
I’d be happy to “debate” (lol) any of those particulars if you want, but I think it’s otherwise best to leave it at “we assess the known facts differently”. If we let some time pass, that’ll at least settle question 2…