Dr. Alexander Wissner-Gross

I had discussions with him around the time also this was happening.

So OpenAI was originally intended in part to be a counterbalance to create a competitive ecosystem.

The problem is

technology is advancing so quickly now that you can start a not for profit with seemingly an idealistic long term goal.

But the dog catches the card these days.

If you set a moonshot goal for a nonprofit, what happens when it actually succeeds and the outcome is economically transformative?

So the teleplay that plays out is everyone actually after starting this not for profit actually realized we're going to catch that car where the dog that catches the car.

And this is probably better structured as a

Doubly so.

And this is the same parable that also played out with Anthropic, when Anthropic underwent its great schism and a number of folks, senior leaders from OpenAI, left OpenAI.

they were initially just forming Anthropic to be a pure alignment lab.

And then they discovered, well, actually, if we want enough funding for alignment, we need revenue.

Well, if we need revenue, we need a model and we need capabilities.

If we need a model and capabilities, we need to raise capital.

Oh, wait, we need a for-profit public benefit corporation.

So I think that the history, the sort of sad lesson we're learning over and over again that's now being litigated in Elon v. Sam that resulted in Anthropix formation over and over again is,

It's actually possible to realize moonshots now, and as a result, don't do it as a not-for-profit.

Do it as a public benefit corporation from the start.

Figure out the for-profit arrangement from the start, rather than fighting it all out in federal court after the fact.

Nice.