Non-profits are not the property of their donors, but of the general interest, with obligations to the public. It is part of the legal and social obligations of the legal structure of non-profits.

▲

Curosinono an hour ago | parent [-]

It wasn't illegal so there is some reason why the USA allowed it.

And as mentioned, they agreeed that they will not get the capital openai needs, so what did the USA people loose? A company which whouldn't have been able to do what they are known for anyway.

Again i'm not protecting the rich, i just don't think there is a real scandal and its not the same as the other 2 the newyorker mentioned

▲

hawkice an hour ago | parent [-]

Their stated non-profit goal was to benefit all of humanity. Changing OpenAI to benefit their financial backers in a formal sense could be a loss of nearly unbounded value.

	▲	nkozyra 33 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Which is probably why they created another, for-profit, entity. You can argue that it's unlikely the for-profit conservatorship of the non-profit is incompatible with that goal, but legally that becomes very much grey area.
	▲	Curosinono 44 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		As i wrote in my prev argument, they assumed that as non profit, they wouldt' get the capital needed to even be a frontier lab. So nothing to loose if their model wouldn't have worked anyway. And at the current state, its better anyway that China is pushing the non-profit/humantariy aspect of open models.