OpenAI's New Restructuring Plan Faces Criticism from 'Not For Private Gain' Group

Group that opposed OpenAI's restructuring raises concerns about new revamp plan

SAN FRANCISCO, May 15 (Reuters) - 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. In the letter, opens new tab 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 (MSFT.O), opens new tab 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. Reporting by Anna Tong in San Francisco; Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab Suggested Topics:Artificial Intelligence Anna Tong Thomson Reuters Anna Tong is a correspondent for Reuters based in San Francisco, where she reports on the technology industry. She joined Reuters in 2023 after working at the San Francisco Standard as a data editor. Tong previously worked at technology startups as a product manager and at Google where she worked in user insights and helped run a call center. Tong graduated from Harvard University.

Group that opposed OpenAI's restructuring raises concerns about new revamp plan

A group opposing OpenAI's restructuring argues the revised plan still inadequately safeguards against dangerous AI development. They claim the proposed public benefit corporation diminishes the nonprofit's authority, potentially prioritising investor interests over OpenAI's original mission. The group's letter, submitted to attorneys-general, highlights concerns about the nonprofit's reduced control and enforcement powers.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.