| ▲ | coldtea 6 hours ago |
| In general public benefit corporations and non-profits should have a very modest salary cap for everybody involved and specific public-benefit legally binding mission statements. Anybody involved should also be prohibited from starting a private company using their IP and catering to the same domain for 5-10 years after they leave. Non-profits where the CEO makes millions or billions are a joke. And if e.g. your mission is to build an open browser, being paid by a for-profit to change its behavior (e.g. make theirs the default search engine) should be prohibited too. |
|
| ▲ | ACCount37 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| "A very modest salary cap" works if your mission is planting trees. Not so much if what you're building is frontier AI systems. |
| |
| ▲ | the_bear 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think that's the point though. The AI companies can't compete without hiring very talented employees and raising lots of money from investors. Neither the employees nor investors would participate if there weren't the potential for making mountains of money. So these AI companies fundamentally can't be non-profits or true B-corps (I realize that's a vague term, but the it certainly means not doing whatever it takes to make as much money as possible), and they shouldn't pretend they are. | | |
| ▲ | ACCount37 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | To me, it feels like saying "you can't be a public benefit corporation unless all the labor involved in delivering that public benefit is cheap". Which just doesn't seem like it should be true? Sure, some "public benefit" missions could scale sideways and employ a lot of cheap labor, not suffering from a salary cap at all. But other missions would require rare high end high performance high salary specialists who are in demand - and thus expensive. You can't rely on being able to source enough altruists that will put up with being paid half their market worth for the sake of the mission. | | |
| ▲ | coldtea 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >But other missions would require rare high end high performance high salary specialists who are in demand - and thus expensive. You can't rely on being able to source enough altruists that will put up with being paid half their market worth for the sake of the mission.' That's exactly what a non-profit should be able to rely on. And not just "half their market worth", but even many times less. Else we can just say "we can't really have non-profits, because everybody is a greedy pig who doesn't care about public benefit enough to make a sacrifice of profits - but still a perfectly livable salary" - and be done with it. |
| |
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's a post hoc argument. The real danger is "We make mountains of money, but everyone dies, including us." The top of the top researchers think this is a real possibility - people like Geoffrey Hinton - so it's not an extremist negative-for-the-sake-of-it POV. It's going to be poetic if the Free Markets Are Optimal and Greed-is-Rational Cult actually suicides the species, as a final definitive proof that their ideology is wrong-headed, harmful, and a tragic failure of human intelligence. But here we are. The universe doesn't care. It's up to us. If we're not smart enough to make smart choices, then we get to live - or die - with the consequences. |
| |
| ▲ | coldtea 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If a non-profit can't attract people not motivated except by profit, perhaps it shouldn't exist. | |
| ▲ | simsla 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | While I agree, if you need high profits to survive, you're not off to a great start as a nonprofit. |
|
|
| ▲ | jkestner 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It’s not the CEO’s fault - they had to take all that money to keep their org a non-profit. B corps are like recycling programs, a nice logo. |
| |
| ▲ | torginus 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Don't they get tax breaks and more lax operating requirements? I don't think this is just an image thing. | | |
| ▲ | mcherm 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, under US law charities and non-profits are typically eligible for some kinds of tax benefits but public benefit corporations are not. |
| |
| ▲ | shafyy 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are you saying that recycling is a scam? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | drzaiusx11 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If we're speaking in generalities of corporations in this space, it's all a joke now, at least from my vantage point. I just don't find it very funny. |
|
| ▲ | OkayPhysicist 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You're overthinking this. Just give the beneficiaries of the corporation (which in the context of a "public" benefit corporation is the public) the grounds to sue if the company reneges on their mission, the same way shareholders can sue if a company fails to act in their interest. |
|
| ▲ | abigail95 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What's the salary cap for hiring a team to build a frontier model? These kind of rules will make PBCs weaker not stronger. |
| |
| ▲ | coldtea 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >for hiring a team to build a frontier model? These kind of rules will make PBCs weaker not stronger Weaker is fine if those working there are actually true to the mission for the mission, are not for the profit. Same with FOSS really, e.g. I'd rather have a weaker Linux that's an actual comminity project run by volunteers, than a stronger Linux that's just corporate agendas, corporate hires with an open license on top. |
|
