OpenAI ist nonprofit?

Ja. Die haben den For-Profit Zweig gegründet um die Forschung zu finanzieren.

We founded the OpenAI Nonprofit in late 2015 with the goal of building safe and beneficial artificial general intelligence for the benefit of humanity. A project like this might previously have been the provenance of one or multiple governments—a humanity-scale endeavor pursuing broad benefit for humankind.

Seeing no clear path in the public sector, and given the success of other ambitious projects in private industry (e.g., SpaceX, Cruise, and others), we decided to pursue this project through private means bound by strong commitments to the public good. We initially believed a 501©(3) would be the most effective vehicle to direct the development of safe and broadly beneficial AGI while remaining unencumbered by profit incentives. We committed to publishing our research and data in cases where we felt it was safe to do so and would benefit the public.

We always suspected that our project would be capital intensive, which is why we launched with the goal of $1 billion in donation commitments. Yet over the years, OpenAI’s Nonprofit received approximately $130.5 million in total donations, which funded the Nonprofit’s operations and its initial exploratory work in deep learning, safety, and alignment.

It became increasingly clear that donations alone would not scale with the cost of computational power and talent required to push core research forward, jeopardizing our mission. So we devised a structure to preserve our Nonprofit’s core mission, governance, and oversight while enabling us to raise the capital for our mission:

• The OpenAI Nonprofit would remain intact, with its board continuing as the overall governing body for all OpenAI activities.
• A new for-profit subsidiary would be formed, capable of issuing equity to raise capital and hire world class talent, but still at the direction of the Nonprofit. Employees working on for-profit initiatives were transitioned over to the new subsidiary.
• The for-profit would be legally bound to pursue the Nonprofit’s mission, and carry out that mission by engaging in research, development, commercialization and other core operations. Throughout, OpenAI’s guiding principles of safety and broad benefit would be central to its approach.
• The for-profit’s equity structure would have caps that limit the maximum financial returns to investors and employees to incentivize them to research, develop, and deploy AGI in a way that balances commerciality with safety and sustainability, rather than focusing on pure profit-maximization.
• The Nonprofit would govern and oversee all such activities through its board in addition to its own operations. It would also continue to undertake a wide range of charitable initiatives, such as sponsoring a comprehensive basic income study, supporting economic impact research, and experimenting with education-centered programs like OpenAI Scholars. Over the years, the Nonprofit also supported a number of other public charities focused on technology, economic impact and justice, including the Stanford University Artificial Intelligence Index Fund, Black Girls Code, and the ACLU Foundation.

In that way, the Nonprofit would remain central to our structure and control the development of AGI, and the for-profit would be tasked with marshaling the resources to achieve this while remaining duty-bound to pursue OpenAI’s core mission. The primacy of the mission above all is encoded in the operating agreement of the for-profit, which every investor and employee is subject to: Link zum Operating Agreement

https://openai.com/our-structure

Und nutzen “nonprofit” nur, um das Vertrauen der Nutzer zu stehlen

Sam Altman ist der Entrepreneur und Investor und er ist unter Führung des Chef-Wissenschaftlers entlassen worden.

Er hat erst vor einigen Tagen Neuregistrierungen temporär deaktivieren lassen weil die Server ausgelastet waren.

Naja, da hatte er ja realistisch wahrscheinlich auch keine andere Wahl.

Meine Frau nutzt das Angebot von OpenAI beruflich (nicht ChatGPT) und das ist in der letzten Zeit so schlecht geworden, dass sich ihr die Frage gestellt hat, ob das so überhaupt noch zulässig ist. Wenn ein bezahlter Service immer wieder nicht erreichbar ist und die Qualität des Outputs sehr nachlässt, dann gibt es irgendwann ein Rechtfertigungsproblem.

Es ist wahrscheinlich genau gegenteiliges der Fall.

Unwahrscheinlich, denke ich:

“I can understand why you chose this word, but I disagree with this. This was the board doing its duty to the mission of the nonprofit, which is to make sure that OpenAI builds AGI that benefits all of humanity,” Sutskever said.

https://www.businessinsider.com/3-open-ai-researchers-resign-sam-altman-dismissal-ceo-2023-11

Wenn man einem Link im Artikel folgt, dann kommt man i.ü. zu:

Before OpenAI’s board removed Sam Altman as CEO, divisions bubbled up across the company about whether it was developing artificial intelligence safely enough, The Information reported.

OpenAI Leaders Split on AI ‘Safety’ Before Ousting Altman

Worüber redet ihr beiden? Es steht doch sogar in der Quelle “dass Altmans Kommunikation mit dem Vorstand nicht immer ehrlich gewesen sei”. Er hat den Vorstand angelogen. Es geht nicht um Geld oder Nicht-Geld, sondern dass er falsche Aussagen ggü. dem Vorstand gemacht hat was seine Pläne sind/waren.