What about me, a random person?
As stated in their foundational legal filings, the primary activity of OpenAI is supposed to be described as: OpenAI, Inc. ("OpenAI") is a nonprofit artificial intelligence ("AI") scientific research organization. Its goal is to engage in research activities that advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. AI technology will help shape the 21st century, and OpenAI wants to help the world build safe AI technology and ensure that AI's benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible. To that end, OpenAI hopes to build AI as part of a larger community, and wants to openly share its plans and capabilities along the way.
As a member of humanity as a whole, they are supposed to be operating for my benefit, not primarily for the benefit of their investors. If they wanted to operate primarily for the benefit of their investors, they should have been paying taxes on every dollar they brought in.
> As a member of humanity as a whole, they are supposed to be operating for my benefit
No. The common good refers to “what is shared and beneficial for all or most members of a given community” [1]. There is no individual claim to benefit.
You can feel misled. Sort of like when a visionary promises something you want and then fails to deliver. But that doesn’t mean you were materially misled, which means you aren’t owed anything.
> they should have been paying taxes on every dollar they brought in
We don’t tax investment in America.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good
It's not that I think they owe me (or any one specific individual) some specific material value, it's that I don't believe they should be allowed to "take the money and run" after amassing it under the guise of being a charity. Their options should be to continue their mission or to donate their assets to other charities that might be able to further their original mission. Anything less is an affront to those that donated, those that the charity was supposed to support (which is everyone), and any customer that believed their dollars were being spent on a product under the management of a charity.
While it's true that we don't tax investments, we do tax gifts past a dollar value threshold, which is what donations become when nonprofit status drops away.
I agree that the whole thing seems shady. But I'm struggling to identify anyone who was hurt. Vague notions of "everyone" doesn't really pass muster--if we can turn that into trillion dollar companies, we should do that!
It's not that I want to see someone made whole for some hurt.
What I want to see is for government to do its job and stamp a big "DENIED" on OpenAI's request to reorganize.
The response should be "Sorry if you feel like you screwed up your corporate structure, but your money really is locked in this non-profit and you can't just take it out".
Edit: Put a different way: Your point seems to be that there is no civil law damage so nothing can be done. My point is that this isn't a civil law matter, it's a corporate law matter: it's not about damages, it's about the social contract we hold corporations to in exchange for allowing them to exist.
> What I want to see is for government to do its job and stamp a big "DENIED" on OpenAI's request to reorganize
To what end? How thrilled would we be if an adversary nation did this to its golden goose?
> it's about the social contract we hold corporations to in exchange for allowing them to exist
Their job is to create wealth. For the time being, OpenAI is creating wealth to the tune of the GDP of the Phillipines or Norway [1]. If it's puffery, pursue it afterwards. If if not...we gained the annual production of a Nordic petrostate. When it goes public, we'll earn tax revenues equal to the entire economy of a small EU member.
Wealth doesn't make right. But I'm failing to see an incurable harm here that outweighs the upside.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...