Some of those funds are redirected to for profit ventures.
Critically, the GM (Altman) of the nonprofit owns shares of the for-profit ventures, that OpenAI funds were redirected into.
A regular company could and does invest in any company even when there's a conflict, as long as the conflict is disclosed and the Board votes in favor of it. There's no criminal element there.
The problem is introduced in Altman's case if
(a) there was no disclosure (red flag) and/or
(b) nonprofit that received the funds, is putting money into things not aligned with the 501(c)(3) mission.
I'm not sure if either (a) or (b) are criminal, but they don't pass the smell test, which is why Altman is being sued in civil court, unrelated to the congressional investigation talked about in the article
Is there a more benign explanation for these things? Altman is undeniably famously cagey and political but despite most of the tech and non-tech worlds seeing him as some kind of con artist, I want to believe the guy who ran YC and wrote pretty good blog posts that got scared here all the time about AI and UBI and all that was not trying to do anything actually fraudulent. No doubt some of OpenAI's founding principles like "stop + assist if a competitor gets to AGI first" are likely flying out the window, perhaps in part due to him and also as one might anticipate of initial lofty ideals and promises, but even with the recent New Yorker and other articles he seems like someone who maybe regularly placates people to avoid personal problems and lies to get out of trouble rather than a Machiavellian tech baron.
>The problem is introduced in Altman's case if (a) there was no disclosure (red flag)
The article says there was a disclosure:
"OpenAI board chairman Bret Taylor defended Altman in a court hearing Monday, testifying that Altman had been “forthright” and “proactive and transparent” about his involvements in other companies. Altman recused himself from recent discussions about a deal between OpenAI and Helion as well, The Wall Street Journal reported."
Your original comment implied that this is a signal that Sam’s influence over the admin hasn’t protected his interests, when that’s still to be seen. The protection racket could still very well benefit him.
He's saying "hey, maybe stop donating to Republicans expecting them to help you out when in reality they will screw over anyone but themselves and especially don't donate to them when the GOP is aggressively homophobic and wants to get rid of your existence entirely"
Personal vendettas between the world's most powerful psychopaths playing out in the stock market while everyone else suffers does seem like the current meta. So it makes sense.
God why do people frame things in such extremes? Neither person is a psychopath. If anyone is closer to a psychopath it’s Altman, but he doesn’t completely fit the monicker.
Does anyone really believe this is more than performative? Increasingly the most likely outcome of such scrutiny is… nothing. He hasn’t stolen enough from the rich to earn any sort of punishment, and he’s not doing anything too different from the Congress critters that are “investigating” him.
The notion that this GOP Oversight Committee sincerely cares about corruption is obviously laughable, so I can only assume this is all being done at Elon's behest.
It's the other way around that is interesting too, not just how OpenAI invested, but how some investors were convinced to invest. Maybe Wikipedia knows.
Sometimes very very close relationships really count.
The thesis is as follows:
OpenAI receives funds as a non-profit.
Some of those funds are redirected to for profit ventures.
Critically, the GM (Altman) of the nonprofit owns shares of the for-profit ventures, that OpenAI funds were redirected into.
A regular company could and does invest in any company even when there's a conflict, as long as the conflict is disclosed and the Board votes in favor of it. There's no criminal element there.
The problem is introduced in Altman's case if
(a) there was no disclosure (red flag) and/or
(b) nonprofit that received the funds, is putting money into things not aligned with the 501(c)(3) mission.
I'm not sure if either (a) or (b) are criminal, but they don't pass the smell test, which is why Altman is being sued in civil court, unrelated to the congressional investigation talked about in the article
Even if the board votes in favor, wouldn't it be tax evasion to fund a for-profit corporation using a 503(c)(3) - which is tax deductible for donors?
Doesn't Sam Altman famously not own OpenAI? His whole arrangement is so shady.
Is there a more benign explanation for these things? Altman is undeniably famously cagey and political but despite most of the tech and non-tech worlds seeing him as some kind of con artist, I want to believe the guy who ran YC and wrote pretty good blog posts that got scared here all the time about AI and UBI and all that was not trying to do anything actually fraudulent. No doubt some of OpenAI's founding principles like "stop + assist if a competitor gets to AGI first" are likely flying out the window, perhaps in part due to him and also as one might anticipate of initial lofty ideals and promises, but even with the recent New Yorker and other articles he seems like someone who maybe regularly placates people to avoid personal problems and lies to get out of trouble rather than a Machiavellian tech baron.
>The problem is introduced in Altman's case if (a) there was no disclosure (red flag)
The article says there was a disclosure:
"OpenAI board chairman Bret Taylor defended Altman in a court hearing Monday, testifying that Altman had been “forthright” and “proactive and transparent” about his involvements in other companies. Altman recused himself from recent discussions about a deal between OpenAI and Helion as well, The Wall Street Journal reported."
no, the thesis is: can the fascists control sam altman.
So, the protection racket is not working? [1] Maybe some folks need to re-think whether this administration is worth "donating" to?
[1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openai-exec-becomes-top-trump...
This story is about congressmen and state attorneys calling for an SEC investigation, not the executive
Which was motivated by a WSJ investigation into Sam’s personal dealings https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/chatgpt-openai-ipo-altman-029ae6...
and famously this executive doesn't over-reach to protect "its own"?
Your original comment implied that this is a signal that Sam’s influence over the admin hasn’t protected his interests, when that’s still to be seen. The protection racket could still very well benefit him.
Are you complaining that government is not corrupt enough?
That seems like a fairly obvious misreading of the comment.
He's saying "hey, maybe stop donating to Republicans expecting them to help you out when in reality they will screw over anyone but themselves and especially don't donate to them when the GOP is aggressively homophobic and wants to get rid of your existence entirely"
I didn't see anything related to homophobia in the comment or any replies except yours...
Blackmailers and protection rackets aren't known for being satisfied after a single payment, after they've established someone is willing to pay.
That is why public corruption is such as plague and one of the reasons the US dollar was seen as a safe store of value once.
I can't help but think that this is due to Musk putting pressure on the current administration to help him win his lawsuit and punish Altman.
Personal vendettas between the world's most powerful psychopaths playing out in the stock market while everyone else suffers does seem like the current meta. So it makes sense.
God why do people frame things in such extremes? Neither person is a psychopath. If anyone is closer to a psychopath it’s Altman, but he doesn’t completely fit the monicker.
How does everyone else suffer? We’re getting subsidized compute.
Look around at the country right now
Nothing to do with Altman v Musk. That would be an AI boom that would be going full steam ahead without either of them.
Almost no one in the country is feeling a boom. Everyone is feeling the consequences of their greed and recklessness.
> The moves follow an April article in The Wall Street Journal that detailed Altman’s efforts to have OpenAI back companies he personally invested in.
Sounds a bit like Wework.
Everything about OpenAI sounds like WeWork. Can't wait to see that S1, I'll need a truckload of popcorn.
Does anyone really believe this is more than performative? Increasingly the most likely outcome of such scrutiny is… nothing. He hasn’t stolen enough from the rich to earn any sort of punishment, and he’s not doing anything too different from the Congress critters that are “investigating” him.
When his company goes tits-up and connected investors lose billions, he'll suddenly face punishment.
"hasn’t stolen enough from the rich to earn any sort of punishment". Do you truly believe this is how the world works?
> Do you truly believe this is how the world works?
It’s a popular meme in Silicon Valley. Hence all the stealing.
Its definitely how America works right now
https://archive.ph/oqVDm
The notion that this GOP Oversight Committee sincerely cares about corruption is obviously laughable, so I can only assume this is all being done at Elon's behest.
Demand his AI chat history be made public!
It's the other way around that is interesting too, not just how OpenAI invested, but how some investors were convinced to invest. Maybe Wikipedia knows.
Sometimes very very close relationships really count.
This can easily be resolved by a sustantial purchase of Trump family crypto.
With worldcoin lol.
The Khan demands 10,000 eyeballs as tribute!
Is this why Claude recommended that I use a Trump phone when I use it?