I don’t think this is true. Nonprofits can aim to amass large amounts of wealth, they just aren’t allowed to distribute that wealth to its shareholders. A good chunk of obviously very wealthy and powerful companies are nonprofits.
I’m not sure if those are precisely the terms of the charter, but that’s besides the point. It is still “private” in the sense that there is a small group of private citizens who own the thing and decide what it should do with no political accountability to anyone else. As for the “non-profit” part, we’ve seen what happens to that as soon as it’s in the way.
Aren’t these different things? Private yes, for profit no. It was private because it’s not like it was run by the US government.
As a non-profit it is obligated to not take opportunities to profit, unless those opportunities are part of it satisfying its altruistic mission.
I don’t think this is true. Nonprofits can aim to amass large amounts of wealth, they just aren’t allowed to distribute that wealth to its shareholders. A good chunk of obviously very wealthy and powerful companies are nonprofits.
I’m not sure if those are precisely the terms of the charter, but that’s besides the point. It is still “private” in the sense that there is a small group of private citizens who own the thing and decide what it should do with no political accountability to anyone else. As for the “non-profit” part, we’ve seen what happens to that as soon as it’s in the way.
So the argument is that Open Phil should only give large sums of money to (democratic) governments? That seems too overpowered for the OpenAI case.
I was more focused on the ‘company’ part. To my knowledge there is no such thing as a non-profit company?