A group that opposed OpenAI’s restructuring wrote in a letter this week that the startup’s new organizational plan still does not go far enough to safeguard the ChatGPT creator from generating dangerous artificial intelligence technology.
The letter dated May 12 was submitted to the California and Delaware attorneys-general by members of a group that calls itself Not For Private Gain.
The letter said OpenAI’s announcement this month to dial back some restructuring “might be a step in the right direction,” yet it does not adequately ensure that OpenAI sticks to its original mission to develop artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity.
The group of critics includes former OpenAI employees and AI experts such as Geoffrey Hinton, the computer scientist known as “the Godfather of AI.” They objected to OpenAI’s proposed reorganization because they said it would have put investors’ profit motives ahead of public good. OpenAI co-founder Elon Musk, who now is a competitor through his company xAI, also objected to the proposal on the same grounds, and is suing OpenAI for breaching the company’s founding contract.
OpenAI dialed back its plan to restructure to remove control from its nonprofit parent entity in May after a firestorm of criticism that included that group’s initial letter opposing the plan.
OpenAI, in which Microsoft has invested more than $13 billion, now plans to convert its for-profit arm into a public benefit corporation (PBC), with the nonprofit parent controlling the PBC and becoming a “big shareholder” in it. OpenAI says this will allow it to raise more capital to keep pace in the expensive AI race.
A PBC is a structure designed to balance shareholder returns with social goals, unlike nonprofits, which are solely focused on public good.
Monday’s letter from opponents says the new plan still enables the company to put profits ahead of public good. First, OpenAI’s current for-profit entity is required to advance its mission and charter above any investor interests, while the proposed PBC is not required to do so, it said.
Second, OpenAI’s nonprofit, as the sole manager, has 100% control over its for-profit entity today, granting it day-to-day operational power such as the ability to fire executives. In the proposed restructuring, the nonprofit would not have comprehensive control over the PBC, which the group said is concerning because the attorneys general derive their enforcement powers solely from the nonprofit’s authority.
OpenAI disagreed with the group’s characterization, saying in a statement: “The nonprofit would continue to have control over the PBC, full stop. Any suggestion otherwise is not accurate.”
A lawyer for Elon Musk agreed with the letter, called OpenAI’s new proposal “nothing but window dressing.”
Reuters
