A group that opposed OpenAI's restructuring wrote in a letter this week that the startup's new organisational plan still does not go far enough to safeguard the ChatGPT creator from generating dangerous artificial intelligence technology.
In the letter dated May 12, submitted to the California and Delaware attorneys-general, members of the 'Not For Private Gain' group argued that while OpenAI's announcement earlier this month to dial back some of its restructuring "might be a step in the right direction," it still does not adequately prevent OpenAI from straying from its original mission to ensure that artificial intelligence is developed for the benefit of humanity.
The larger group, comprising former OpenAI employees and AI experts such as Geoffrey Hinton, had written an initial letter in April opposing OpenAI's then plan to restructure to remove control from its nonprofit parent entity.
The letter was part of a firestorm of criticism and legal challenges, including a high-profile lawsuit filed by rival and co-founder Elon Musk, that prompted OpenAI to dial back its restructuring 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, which it says will allow OpenAI 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.
But Monday's letter says OpenAI's new plan significantly diminishes the nonprofit's existing authority. 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's enforcement powers are derived solely from the nonprofit's authority.
In the letter dated May 12, submitted to the California and Delaware attorneys-general, members of the 'Not For Private Gain' group argued that while OpenAI's announcement earlier this month to dial back some of its restructuring "might be a step in the right direction," it still does not adequately prevent OpenAI from straying from its original mission to ensure that artificial intelligence is developed for the benefit of humanity.
The larger group, comprising former OpenAI employees and AI experts such as Geoffrey Hinton, had written an initial letter in April opposing OpenAI's then plan to restructure to remove control from its nonprofit parent entity.
The letter was part of a firestorm of criticism and legal challenges, including a high-profile lawsuit filed by rival and co-founder Elon Musk, that prompted OpenAI to dial back its restructuring 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, which it says will allow OpenAI 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.
But Monday's letter says OpenAI's new plan significantly diminishes the nonprofit's existing authority. 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's enforcement powers are derived solely from the nonprofit's authority.
