But regardless of the outcome, there is a wide range of losers in this case. Based on a substantial amount of evidence, it appears that the people worst off are the employees, policy makers, and members of the public who believed in the mission of a nonprofit research lab – and supported OpenAI because of it. The world appears to be building an example at almost every turn for Musk and OpenAI’s other co-founders leading AI Lab—even if it means creating a billion-dollar profitable company in the process.
“It’s hard to see how the public interest is being protected by either of these parties, and really that’s ultimately what’s at stake in a nonprofit case,” says Jill Horwitz, a Northwestern University law professor specializing in nonprofits and innovation, who heard closing arguments. “The public interest in a nonprofit is at risk, no matter who wins.”
OpenAI’s stated mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits humanity, but humanity is not a party to this case. In practice, OpenAI has spent the last decade attempting to rival multitrillion dollar companies like Google and create AGI first. Additionally, Musk and Altman have fought tooth and nail to control OpenAI.
“Musk and Altman are basically in a race to be the first person to create superintelligence, and they’re both rightly afraid of what the other one will do if they win. The rest of us should be afraid of both of them,” says Daniel Kokotajlo, a former OpenAI researcher who joined in 2022 and raised concerns over the company’s security culture. He was part of a group of former OpenAI researchers who filed an amicus brief in this case against OpenAI’s conversion to for-profit, arguing that the non-profit structure was important in their decision to join the company.
During the trial, OpenAI’s non-profit organization was discussed as if it were any other corporate investor. OpenAI’s lawyers argued that giving a nonprofit a $200 billion stake in a for-profit company is proof that OpenAI is fulfilling its mission. Public advocacy groups disagree that funding alone is enough.
“I am among the many who are pleased to see how many philanthropic resources the OpenAI Foundation has at its disposal to do good work,” says Nathan Kelvin, vice president of state affairs at the AI security nonprofit Encode, which previously filed an amicus brief in the case opposing OpenAI’s restructuring. “But it’s worth remembering that the nonprofit also has a governance role, and the mission of the nonprofit is not one of a specific foundation, it is specifically to ensure that AGI benefits all of humanity. Money is important to that goal and everything else is equally useful, but it is not an end in itself.”
original story
Evidence uncovered in this case shows that Altman and Musk agreed to launch OpenAI as a non-profit and operate like a normal startup. They shared the goal of defeating Google DeepMind in the AGI race. But forming OpenAI as a nonprofit proved to be an extremely inconvenient means of winning that race.
Musk has accused OpenAI CEO Altman and its co-founder and president Greg Brockman of deviating from the nonprofit’s founding mission. He claims that the founders used their $38 million investment to turn OpenAI into an $850 billion company and make many of its co-founders billionaires.
<a href