This is something you don’t get. What happens to the for-profit arm of OpenAI is not her problem, her loyalty lies with the non-profit arm’s charter (and not even the organization itself).

She is doing her job to uphold the mission of the organization.

This is exactly correct and so many people just don’t get it. The non-profit owns the for-profit, not the other way around. When the goals of the for-profit clash with the goals of the non-profit, the for-profit has to yield.

> What happens to the for-profit arm of OpenAI is not her problem

Who pays the bill for the non profit arm, wasnt that the for profit arm?

The for-profit arm was always meant to be subservient to the non-profit arm - the latter practically owns the former.

The important thing for the non-profit arm is the mission, its own existence is secondary.

> The important thing for the non-profit arm is the mission, its own existence is secondary.

So OpenAI should just shut down because the charitable donations were not enough to keep the lights on.

If they lack money they could always scale back operations.

Also running the for-profit arm the way Altman did isn’t the only way.

A more reasonable CEO would do what he/she can to make money without running afoul of the charter. Yes, it will be less profit - and sometimes no profit at all - but that’s the way it should be in a non-profit organization.

OpenAI used to be an organization that dabbled with various AI technologies. Anyone remember their DOTA2 bot? Before Altman turned it into all about commercializing their LLM - going so far as to try to lobby congress to create laws, in the name of safety of course, to hobble any upstart competition.