this post was submitted on 06 May 2025
264 points (96.5% liked)

Technology

69772 readers
3743 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
264
OpenAI abandons plan to become a for-profit company (www.theverge.com)
submitted 1 day ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 108 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

investors in OpenAI’s commercial entity were capped at making 100 times their money

They should never be allowed to call this a "non-profit" (and probably even get tax exemptions?)

What a dirty lie in the first place!

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 11 points 9 hours ago

A maximum of 10,000% profit is "nonprofit"? Any country that allows for something like this is a joke.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

OpenAI’s commercial entity

They should never be allowed to call this a "non-profit"

They never did. The nonprofit parent owned shares in a for-profit subsidiary, which was structured in a way that investors in the for-profit subsidiary could never control the company (the nonprofit would own a controlling share) and had their gains capped at 100x.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 8 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

That's still a common structure used by billionaires to justify reaping millions of dollars in revenue and still claim, "but I own a non-profit". Also, to say the nonprofit controls the profit part would require the governance and the management hierarchies to be separate to avoid conflict of interests. But this has never been the case. Now they're becoming a public benefit company, it will be even less the case, with both boards being one and the same. This will effectively keep the good-will façade while allowing them to lift the profit caps for their friends. It's all PR bullshit.

[–] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 16 points 15 hours ago

No, those were the terms when the company was "for profit." Now that they're "nonprofit" the investors can make unlimited profit.

The billions of dollars the company raised in its last two funding rounds were contingent on successfully removing this limit on investor returns.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 8 points 1 day ago

Oh, thanks for pointing that out.... my head was just going "Fuck Sam Altman .. Fuck Sam Altman .. Fuck Sam Altman .. Fuck Sam Altman .. Fuck Sam Altman ...." ---