Non-profits still earn money recorded as net assets. They do not retain earnings at the end of the accounting period to store in shareholder’s equity because there are no shareholders that own the non-profit.
The point still stands, the board does not have "investors". Microsoft knowingly donated to the for profit entity of the non profit. Open AI isn't a PBC, it's a 501c non profit. So the board can act that way, without the knowledge of the investors.
That being said, this is a case of biting the hand that feeds you. An equivalent would be if a nonprofit humiliated its biggest donor. The donor can always walk away, claiming her future donations away, but whatever she's donated stays at the nonprofit.
Watching what? A 501c3 being publicly pressured to make key governance decisions for the commercial benefits of investors in the 501c3's for-profit indirect subsidiary rather than the board's good-faith interpretation of its charitable purpose?
Nonprofit boards literally don't answer to anyone. Company boards are responsible to shareholders, but nonprofits only have donors and that's not ownership. You can say you're not donating again, or all the employees can quit, but neither of those are legal issues for the board members. It just makes them look stupid.
Though, I'm not sure if you can legally force a donation refund, or what it counts as if you cancel a billion in Azure credits.
Can you please stop posting in the flamewar style? You've done it multiple times in this thread, it's not what we want here (and destroys what we do want), and you can make your substantive points without it.
From a legal point of view, they are correct: non-profits do not have shares, so they do not have shareholders, and it's the board that wields ultimate authority.
Of course in real life non-profits are funded by donors, who thus have a great deal of practical power over what happens, and you can also do things like sue the non-profit for deviating from its mission.
If they are willing to let things end (because they see their mission as not being fulfillable etc.) and don't care much otherwise then that statement isn't far off. I really don't know how ideological this particular situation is, though.
Are you going to claim something is specifically going to happen to them or are you just going to post about "what's really going on man"?
Satya can assassinate them if he wants, but they're not in legal trouble. (Although, considering how much Helen Toner's resume reads like a CIA agent, he probably shouldn't try it.)
I think they could survive as a useless AI safety lab too. After all, there's already been one for decades called MIRI and it has enough donors to stay open.
