At the same time that OpenAI makes splashy claims about supporting nonprofits, it's harassing nonprofit critics (including us) with subpoenas, asking for our documents and communications about the company.

But the media falls for it still.

OpenAI did not just create "one of the richest charities in the world."

It WAS one of the richest charities in the world, and now it still is -- but with its ownership share substantially diminished.

But now that it has succeed, OpenAI and its investors have gotten dollar signs in their eyes.

They're persuing a "recapitalization" that will substantially weaken the nonprofit's control and entitlements. The latest version of that is a measly 20% stake.

How is this possible?

OpenAI once had profit caps limiting investors to a maximum of 100x their initial investment, with all future cash flows returning to humanity.

By 2021, this dropped to single digits. The nonprofit was owed nearly dollar OpenAI made if it succeeded.

OpenAI once said its nonprofit would be entitled to "the vast majority" and "all but a fraction" of the wealth it generates.

Now, in their new restructuring, they are saying it will be entitled to only 20%. (~$100b out of a $500b valuation).

From "Nearly all" to "one fifth" 🙄

We look forward to hearing OpenAI’s response.

✉️ To read the letter, and to add your name, visit
www.openai-transparency.org

What is it that the letter’s signatories, spanning creatives, professors, nonprofits, and whistleblowers, have in common?

We are all part of humanity, and thus beneficiaries of OpenAI’s mission.

Everyone has a stake in this restructuring and deserves to know the details.

7. Finally, will the public ever get to see the details of our current entitlements and safeguards as they are legally instantiated in OpenAI documents, or will they continue to be quietly changed without our knowledge (as happened to the profit caps in 2023)?

6. OpenAI’s charter also includes a promise that, since a race to AGI could pose severe risks, if another company is close to developing the technology, they will stop racing and start assisting to reduce the market pressures and encourage safety. Is this still true?

5. OpenAI once boasted about its commitment to ensure AGI technology, when developed, is controlled by the nonprofit instead of investors. However, recent reporting suggests they are considering scrapping this promise, or replacing it with “ASI,” a much higher benchmark.

4. OpenAI’s leadership has said its profit caps are critical because the wealth they will generate is “for sure not okay” for one group of investors to have, and that if they succeed, “all but a fraction” will be returned to the world.

Is that still true?

3. So far, the nonprofit board making this decision has been composed of AI investors, entrepreneurs, and in one case, OpenAI’s newly-appointed CEO of Applications. Some reporting suggests this board will lead the for-profit they are creating. So will they receive equity?

2. Next, the letter asks whether the nonprofit will continue to have the same control after the restructuring that it has today. So far, OpenAI has vaguely indicated the nonprofit will retain control while privately suggesting that it will lose many of its powers.

What are those questions? Let's get into it.

1. The first question, and possibly the most important, is whether the mission will still take priority over profits. By default, public benefit corporations are merely required to balance these concerns.

This new letter asks them seven simple questions about the restructuring that, if they answer them honestly, will help the public truly understand what is at stake in this restructuring.

For context: OpenAI was famously founded as a nonprofit organization, believing that AGI technology was too valuable, and too dangerous, for the private market. However, investor pressure has changed things.

🚨 Breaking: A group of 100+ Nobel laureates, professors, whistleblowers, public figures, artists, and nonprofit organizations just released a letter asking OpenAI to tell the truth about its restructuring.

Here’s what they had to say: 🧵