1) In order to fund research - this stuff costs 10s of billions of dollars - everyone, from Ilya, to Elon, to Sam - all agreed that they would require a profit-arm to raise money. Nobody was going to sponsor that 10s of billions of dollars to a non-profit.

2) The non profit is still there - and controls the commercial element.

alpinisme 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

“Controls”

That will be especially untrue after IPO when shareholders can claim there are fiduciary responsibilities that conflict with the non profit goals.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> when shareholders can claim there are fiduciary responsibilities that conflict with the non profit goals The for-profit has fiduciary responsibility to the non-profit as well as other shareholders. The IPO doesn't really change that.
	▲	alextheparrot 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The for-profit is a PBC with the sane mission at the nonprofit [0] [0] https://openai.com/index/built-to-benefit-everyone/
	▲	super256 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The non profit is a big shareholder of the commercial subsidiary

▲

JumpCrisscross 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> non profit is still there - and controls the commercial element

The non-profit hasn't controlled squat since they tried and failed to fire Sam Altman.

▲

argee 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Nobody was going to sponsor that 10s of billions of dollars to a non-profit

How much has MacKenzie Scott donated to non-profits again?

Seems like such a claim is on thin ice.