But regardless of the outcome, there is a wide range of losers in this situation. Based on ample amounts of evidence, it appears that the people who fare worst are the employees, policy makers, and members of the public who believed in the mission of the nonprofit research lab, and supported OpenAI because of it. What seems to set a precedent for Musk and the other OpenAI founders at almost every turn is world-building. Leading AI lab, even if it means creating a multi-billion dollar for-profit company in the process.
“It’s hard to see how the public interest is protected by either of these parties, and that’s ultimately what’s at stake in a nonprofit case,” says Jill Horowitz, a law professor at Northwestern University with expertise in nonprofits and innovation, who heard closing arguments. “The public interest of the nonprofit is at risk no matter who wins.”
OpenAI’s stated mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits humanity, but humanity is not a party to this case. In practical terms, OpenAI has spent the past decade trying to compete with multi-trillion-dollar companies like Google and build artificial general intelligence first. Additionally, Musk and Altman fought tooth and nail to be the ones to control OpenAI.
“Musk and Altman are basically in a race to be the first to build superintelligence, and both are rightfully afraid of what the other will do if they win,” says Daniel Kokotaglo, a former OpenAI researcher who joined in 2022 and raised concerns about the company’s safety culture. “The rest of us should be afraid of them both.” He was part of a group of former OpenAI researchers who filed an amicus brief in the case against OpenAI turning a profit, arguing that the nonprofit structure was crucial to their decision to join the company.
During the trial, the nonprofit OpenAI was discussed as if it were another corporate investor. OpenAI’s lawyers argued that giving the nonprofit a $200 billion stake in the for-profit company is proof that OpenAI is fulfilling its mission. Public advocacy groups disagree that funding alone is enough.
“I’m among the many people who are happy to see how many philanthropic resources the OpenAI Foundation has to do good work,” says Nathan Calvin, vice president of state affairs at the AI safety nonprofit Encode, who filed an amicus brief opposing OpenAI’s restructuring earlier in the case. “But it is worth remembering that non-profits also have a management role, and that the mission of non-profits is not that of a typical organization, but rather is precisely to ensure that AGI benefits all of humanity. Money is important for achieving this goal, and it is good for all other things, but it is not the goal in itself.”
Origin story
Evidence uncovered in this case suggests that Altman and Musk agreed to launch OpenAI as a non-profit and operate much like a typical startup. They shared the goal of beating Google DeepMind in the race to AGI. But setting up OpenAI as a nonprofit turned out to be a woefully inadequate way to win this race.
Musk accused Altman, CEO of OpenAI, and Greg Brockman, its co-founder and president, of straying from the nonprofit’s founding mission. He claims the founders used his $38 million investment to turn OpenAI into an $850 billion company and make many of its founders billionaires.
