In case you are paywalled, the complaint is that the OpenAI PBC is controlled by the OpenAI 501(c)(3), thus will be subject to constraints its competitors do not face, and investors aren't sufficiently aware of the risk. Thus the non-profit control and the public-benefit mission is at odds with generating shareholder value, threatening to take down the economy if it fails.
Regardless of how you feel about their product, it seems like a silly argument when the risk is that there isn't actually a market for trillions of dollars of AI spend.
<snark/>Is it easier to say 'non-profit' compared to 'not making profits'?
But seriously, can someone explain why openai went this route?
Why would investors not be aware of the risk? OpenAI isn’t hiding its corporate structure. Read their S-1 and other IPO documents before investing.
In case you are paywalled, the complaint is that the OpenAI PBC is controlled by the OpenAI 501(c)(3), thus will be subject to constraints its competitors do not face, and investors aren't sufficiently aware of the risk. Thus the non-profit control and the public-benefit mission is at odds with generating shareholder value, threatening to take down the economy if it fails.
Regardless of how you feel about their product, it seems like a silly argument when the risk is that there isn't actually a market for trillions of dollars of AI spend.