> this is fundamentally about: stopping or fundamentally changing OpenAI's plans to be spun off.
If OpenAI actually values OpenAI-NP at $40B then they will surely sell it for $97B. The point is the $40B is obviously a dramatic undervaluing and the fact they won't sell it for $97B shows that. This is the wrench.
"We believe an OpenAI-P owned by Elon is fundamentally against our mission."
While I'm not saying Sam's being an angel here, I do think it's reasonable to say that llms aren't an existential risk and spinning them off to a consumer thing while xrisk and super alignment stays in a nonprofit is plausibly mission aligned, and certainly moreso than giving any amount of control to the guy who's proven his devotion to care and safety in progress by checks notes taking a sledgehammer to the US Treasury.
But OpenAI-P of course wouldn't be owned by Elon, he would just own $40B worth of OpenAI-P according to their own valuation of it. A tiny minority stake of the $157B enterprise.
OpenAI-NP, could just go back to other OpenAI investors and buy back their "$40B" stake plus have $57B leftover to apply to AI safety. Silly Elon, overpaying by almost 2.5X for something of such little value!
It's a hard point that they would likely have to make in court! Harder still with Elon having originally been involved in founding OpenAI-NP.
Everyone hates Elon reasonably but few people seem to care the Sam Altman is conducting a theft on the order of $57+B.
I think you added this after I replied. Even if this is the case, better to do so with $97B and no control in OpenAI than $40B and no control in OpenAI!
OpenAI-NP can either have a $40B from spinning out OpenAI-P or $97B in cash. In theory, they could literally just go and buy back their stake in OpenAI-P and have $57B left over for other AI endeavors if the valuation of it at $40B were remotely reasonable! If I'm on the board and I believe the $40B number, I'd do this in a heatbeat.
