| ▲ | IG_Semmelweiss 4 hours ago |
| 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 |
|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The thesis is Altman ran around saying he was building something that will kill everyone, then backed off to saying he’ll just kill everyone’s jobs. When data centers and a war of choice pushed inflation to 7+% [1], Republicans in the Congress were left scrambling for a scapegoat. And Sam is a terrific scapegoat. He has no public shareholders like the more hated Zuckerberg and Bezos [2]. Yet he has carved for himself a uniquely-visibly throne for a private-company boss. (His only rival for scapegoatiness is Musk. But he’s inoculated from Republicans by his blatant partisanship.) [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm 0.6% MoM in April, 0.9% MoM in March [2] https://techoversight.org/2025/06/11/tech-ceo-poll-25/ |
| |
| ▲ | mywittyname 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Also, doesn't musk hate him? I have to imagine he's behind this. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > have to imagine he's behind this Is Musk probably throwing fuel on the fire? Yes, probably. (Though we have no proof of this.) Is Musk causing this? No. This is mainly Altman’s doing. The hyperbole. The lying. The leverage. The pomp. Even Zuckerberg and Bezos haven’t painted a target on themselves like he has. (To the point that I’m borderline sympathetic.) | | |
| ▲ | dbreunig 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Elizabeth Lopatto at The Verge makes a strong case we _do_ have proof that Musk is actively gathering and throwing fuel on the fire: https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/929129/s... > But the thing is, Molo doesn’t actually have to be good at this job, because the point of this trial isn’t to win — though I’m sure Musk wouldn’t mind a win. The point is to punish Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI. Musk has done that pretty thoroughly — reinforcing in the public’s mind that Altman is a liar and a snake. This morning, I read an exclusive in The Wall Street Journal that assorted Republican AGs and the House Oversight committee wanted to look into Sam Altman’s investments. References to the trial are peppered throughout the article. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh sure, the trial is maybe 5% a Hail Mary and 95% about distracting and disrupting OpenAI. I read "behind this" to mean more-clandestine moves, e.g. planting stories, conducting and leaking oppo, amplifying negative media on X, et cetera. | | |
| ▲ | keeda 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It does seem like there is a ton of negative PR and sentiment on social media (including HN) about anything Altman and even Dario do. Like, way more than warranted. It looks more and more like a coordinated campaign, a la https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html Elon even explicitly threatened the OpenAI guys that they would be "the most hated" people on earth, and given what we've seen him do with Twitter, I strongly suspect there indeed is a submarine with Elon at the periscope. Altman may be getting the brunt of the AI backlash, but the impact of AI is still extremely preliminary, and it will happen regardless of anything he does. As you mentioned, it doesn't help that these guys are telling the world AI will disrupt all the jobs but... at this point, I think they're just being honest. As shifty as Altman is, I wonder how he gets more hate than Elon, who has objectively done way more concrete damage to the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | boringg 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Doesn't Sam Altman famously not own OpenAI? His whole arrangement is so shady. |
| |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | So a non-profit can absolute invest in or own a for-profit subsidary. This is extremely common. The idea is that the for-profit returns will flow back to the non-profit and remain dedicated to the non-profit mission. Where things get really shady and run the risk of IRS violations is when the leadership of the non-profit has a seperate for profit stake in the subsidary. | |
| ▲ | meowface 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 at this point seeing him as some kind of con artist, I still kind of want to try to believe he's not. 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. | | |
| ▲ | mcmcmc 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. This would be more plausible were it not for the staggering amount of wealth he’s amassed through those lies. | |
| ▲ | mrhottakes 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | When someone tells you who they are, you should believe them. | |
| ▲ | grey-area 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | His own sister accused him of sexual assault. He was fired from his first startup. He was abruptly fired from ycombinator in shady circumstances. He was accused by the OpenAI board of lying to them, ousted, and somehow managed to regain control. He took OpenAI from being a non-profit to a for-profit, with obvious benefits to whoever controls it. He was massively misleading about the capabilities of his product and predicted AGI within years. At some point the pattern of all these events should have some weight in your judgement of him, no? | |
| ▲ | jjulius 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > ... I still kind of want to try to believe he's not. Asking genuinely - why? | | |
| ▲ | hx8 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | What if it's actually super-intelligence and a human aligned visionary is at the helm. The good case is very good. | | |
| ▲ | saulpw 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I mean what if he's actually the second coming of Christ. We can make up "what if"s all day but it's meaningless to even discuss them if you don't have a shred of evidence to support the claim. | | |
| ▲ | hx8 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Exactly. The second coming of Christ would be a very good case. Why people want to believe Altman is good is about the same reason people want to believe in the second coming. | | |
| ▲ | hluska 6 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I’m really struggling to see how Christian apocalyptic ideas are even remotely relevant. We used to be capable of so much. |
|
| |
| ▲ | estearum an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Uhh literally what is one thing Sam has done or said that demonstrates he's either human-aligned or visionary? | |
| ▲ | latexr an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Come on… The guy who said he can’t imagine caring for his child without consulting ChatGPT… The guy who said he didn’t know how to make revenue with ChatGPT, and made a “soft promise” to investors they’d somehow achieve AGI then ask it how to make money… The guy who made a cryptocurrency scam that was banned in multiple countries… The guy who everyone around him says he’s a con artist and a sociopath… That guy? Really? |
|
| |
| ▲ | elmomle 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | He will say whatever it takes to get the result he wants. That's manipulative and, when pursued as a lifestyle, sociopathic. Living like that is corrupting. When you treat humans like objects, the question of your starting intentions is really secondary. | | | |
| ▲ | bfivyvysj 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We already reached agi a while ago. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | fauigerzigerk 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >The problem is introduced in Altman's case if (a) there was no disclosure (red flag) The article says the investments were disclosed: "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." |
|
| ▲ | randerson 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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? |
| |
| ▲ | yieldcrv 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, non profits can invest in anything. Publicly traded stocks are c-corps too, thats how endowments grow. There is nothing that distinguishes liquid vs illiquid c-corp shares. Regarding founder ownership, the rules are extremely flexible like a non profit director can’t own more than 20 voting or 35% total of the business venture but if it happens then it just needs to be remedied within 3 years so for venture style deals that’s plenty of time to dilute down, and the little known secret in the startup space is that the founders non profit steps in as the lead investor, so all the other investors arent just twiddling their thumbs waiting for a founder to convince someone, it just closes. Other investors dilute founder and non profit, everything is compliant, value is created. Both for profit and non profit side will be tax free, due to QSBS | |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | some of the largest for profit investors are non-profits. It is all about if you can get the money back out. |
|
|
| ▲ | cyanydeez 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| no, the thesis is: can the fascists control sam altman. |
|
| ▲ | ajross 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| That is emphatically NOT the thesis of the linked article. That's the argument made by the politicians being quoted and enumerated. What the article is trying to tell you is that these actions are entirely partisan, and reflect the desires and statements of the largest and wealthiest republican donor, who happens to own a competing interest. You can think Altman is a bad person and OpenAI is something of a scam and still recognize that using the government as a tool to corruptly hobble your competition is a horrifyingly bad thing. These are awful times we live in, I really fear what we'll have to be telling our grandkids. Will it be just a cautionary tale about the dangers of populism and partisanship or will it be sad, wistful tales about how much better things were... "before"? |
