[HN Gopher] OpenAI removes Sam Altman's ownership of its Startup...
___________________________________________________________________
OpenAI removes Sam Altman's ownership of its Startup Fund
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 257 points
Date : 2024-04-01 16:34 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| recursive4 wrote:
| Would have been a great April Fools'.
| Havoc wrote:
| Given that apparently people don't understand the difference
| between LPs and GPs this unfortunately makes sense
| iamleppert wrote:
| How did he do that deal? That's really rich! He should buy the
| trademark OpenAI and lease it back to the non-profit now to boot!
| Gotta love a mastermind capitalist like Altman at work! We can
| all learn a thing or two from him.
| nickff wrote:
| You can't register a brand trademark unless you're (already)
| using it; this is one key difference between copyright and
| trademarks.
| throwawaybanjo1 wrote:
| There's more to this story. https://www.nongaap.com/p/openai-
| startup-fund-gp-hallucinati...
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| Since I'm not an expert in corporate law, anyone know how much
| of what's described in the above is legal?
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| At the very least, any false disclosures in the governmental
| filings would be illegal, and the bizarre mixture of
| overlapping names and addresses for the listed directors (as
| discussed extensively in the article) suggests some degree of
| dishonesty.
|
| I too am not an expert on corporate law, but very few
| governments make it legal to lie on these types of forms.
| 23B1 wrote:
| The AGI is now running OAI. Hide your paperclips.
| throwup238 wrote:
| As long as we stop it before it creates hypnodrones, we might
| just be ok.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| Nah, it's just the mysterious new board member, Hugh Mann.
| JohnFen wrote:
| No need to hide your paperclips. The AGI will make more.
| inetknght wrote:
| Using fictitious names on legal documents is a crime, isn't it?
| So if those names are truly not real people, then isn't it
| criminal to put them on notarized documents?
| gs17 wrote:
| It is a crime, although it doesn't seem to be public
| knowledge who actually did it. The "Jrbiltmore" account is
| the most likely suspect, but AFAIK that's just speculation at
| this point.
| notahacker wrote:
| There's... a _lot_ of other stuff that turns up on Google,
| including GPT chatbots associated with "Vespers Inc" that
| claim to help people with online filing, name overlaps with
| people who had genuine court cases filed against them in
| California several years ago, a defunct and obviously spammy
| Vespers Inc LinkedIn AI and Cybersecurity profile, and a Github
| profile of a "Governmental Forensic Fraud Investigator that
| shares the online filings' interests in Pirate Stock(s) and
| er.. other overlaps. Oh, and a LinkedIn profile of a Jacob
| Vespers, supposedly an Orange County Station Chief involved in
| "Persona Creation" for the CIA!
|
| I'm inclined to go with this interpretation:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39875809
|
| But I will say that if it turns out that Sam's latest scheme
| for world domination has been foiled by him dogfooding his own
| product, then it's very very funny
| nongaap wrote:
| Hi, author of "GP Hallucination" here.
|
| I think the linked interpretation is very, very reasonable
| and it's a big reason why I tried to deemphasize all the
| "stuff" you've highlighted in my piece.
|
| I think most of us would agree the person in question - if
| they're real - is exhibiting signs of a mental health crisis.
|
| That said, I wouldn't have written the piece if I felt the
| aforementioned interpretation was the primary explanation to
| everything I'm seeing in the disclosures. I proactively tried
| as I went through the disclosures.
|
| The issue I'm having is - regardless of what this person is
| able to concoct with ChatGPT or other methods - they
| shouldn't have been able to insert themselves and their
| Vespers "creation" into OpenAI Startup Fund I GP LLC's CA
| filings even if they wanted to.
|
| One could argue they either needed to "hack" into the CA
| filing to insert themselves as Manager/CEO or someone at
| OpenAI allowed it happen (knowingly or unknowingly is tbd).
|
| It also doesn't help OpenAI won't explain 1) how it happened,
| 2) why it took so long to catch it, and 3) why it wasn't
| reported to regulators once discovered:
|
| "[OpenAI] declined to elaborate on how exactly fabricated
| documents came to be filed with the state of California."
|
| I recognize this sounds a bit conspiratorial, but there are
| elements (I didn't cover) to this person's filings involving
| OAI that looks very thoughtful/intentional and are hard to
| dismiss as random/coincidental/hallucinated actions of
| someone that likely needs help.
|
| And OAI's "response" didn't help address the actual issues
| I'm seeing.
| DalasNoin wrote:
| I feel like this is more interesting than the original post.
| Though I am not sure what I am supposed to make out of this: is
| it 1. shady operations using fake identities with their
| signatures or 2. an early example of OAI trying to use AI for
| making money through investments? I lean towards the first one.
| I mean maybe there is an explanation which makes this seem more
| reasonable. Do people create boards with fake directors and
| owners for companies?
| nicklecompte wrote:
| The Substack was badly written, and it took me a long time to
| figure out what their point was. And I might be wrong! I got
| lost in the purple prose.
|
| Regardless of how shady OpenAI's aims may have been, I
| genuinely think the root cause of this is that someone at
| OpenAI foolishly used ChatGPT to automate boring tax
| paperwork. ChatGPT decided "John Q Vesper" or whatever was a
| statistically plausible name for the CEO, and this dumb
| mistake wasn't caught by a human because nobody wants to read
| tax paperwork if they think a magical talking robot is
| capable of what seems like a routine task. I am assuming
| OpenAI didn't intend to tell a ridiculous and easily
| falsifiable lie in its tax filings (especially if that lie
| contradicted their public explanations about Altman's
| management of the fund!). OpenAI probably wanted the
| paperwork to say "Sam Altman."
|
| FWIW the IRS is generally forgiving of good-faith tax errors,
| but I would suspect "we spent so long lying about our chatbot
| that we ourselves forgot that it's dumber than a pigeon and
| doesn't actually understand human language" doesn't count.
| Considering how many two-bit lawyers got in significant legal
| trouble for relying on ChatGPT hallucinations, it would be
| outrageous if OpenAI manages to get off scot-free here.
| makestuff wrote:
| "OpenAI has said Altman does not have financial interest in the
| fund despite the ownership."
|
| Can someone explain how this could be true?
| reaperman wrote:
| It could mean there were other agreements, where he didn't put
| any money into the fund and all profits were contractually
| obligated elsewhere?
| paxys wrote:
| It simply means he didn't put his own money into the fund.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| Might it therefore imply that he seeks to put others but not
| his own money into the fund?
|
| Or does it imply that he has no intention of profiting from
| the fund?
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| Sometimes I wonder exactly how much financial engineering a
| "non profit" entity is supposed to need...
| propter_hoc wrote:
| I'm not a lawyer, but I've been involved in a fair bit of venture
| fund formation.
|
| A fund is not an incorporated entity, but rather a partnership of
| two persons. In a limited partnership, one of those persons is
| the general partner and does all the work and assumes the related
| liability, and the rest are "limited partners" who just commit
| capital.
|
| Banks and tax authorities only open accounts for actually-formed
| partnerships, not hypothetical partnerships that might happen in
| the future. But, you need a bank account for the LP investors to
| send their money to.
|
| So, in my experience it is _super_ common to have a temporary
| Initial LP, which is usually a related person (one of the
| founders of the firm acting in their personal capacity, for
| example), to allow the Initial LP and the GP to form the fund and
| open the accounts. Then the Initial LP withdraws in the actual
| closing event where the investors sign onto the partnership
| agreement and commit their money.
|
| I have never seen an "initial GP" though. I believe the
| explanation, but can't really figure out why one would be
| necessary. Maybe they wanted to incorporate a GP Co, but didn't
| get around to it?
|
| Love to hear any theories why this might be useful..?
| ameister14 wrote:
| Rewriting this to just say it could be simply to shift
| liability for your initial GP to the new one; not sure why you
| would choose this structure in that case but it's possible?
|
| It could also be that the initial GP had individual contractual
| or ethical obligations that were counter to the best interest
| of other investors so could not continue acting in control of
| the investment vehicle, that'd be a reason to change
|
| But no, no idea why you would _plan_ to have an initial GP
| yieldcrv wrote:
| None of this makes sense in a Master-Feeder model, as the
| master fund is a partnership between the feeder funds, one US,
| one offshore for foreign investors
|
| The general partner is not an owner they are a manager. The
| general partner doesnt have to be a human either it can be
| another entity or multiple entities
|
| all of this can be hotswapped
|
| Even in a mini-master models or single US entity model, LPs are
| the owners, GP is just a managing member. "ownership" in the
| context of this article is ambiguous, but the SEC filings would
| add the clarity necessary for this discussion, probably
| "manager" or "controlling person"
| lgregg wrote:
| Where can you go to learn more about these entity / LP / LLP
| setups that finance orgs use?
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| I suppose you caveated your statement well , by starting your
| writeup with "master-feeder" setups. However in a vanilla
| fund, your description does not apply.
|
| In a vanilla fund, the GP is another partner and has
| "ownership" just like LPs do. Its just traditionally very
| insignificant.
|
| The GP is simply a special partner as outlined in the LPA.
| They vote etc just like other LPs in major matters. They make
| minor decisions for the partnership. This is why usually that
| means the GP is the managing member.
|
| Ive described the traditional VC fund.
|
| No need to make it more complex with a master-feeder
| structure. Or a secondary, etc
| d0odk wrote:
| The gp gets carry
| Zenst wrote:
| Given Elons lawsuit, how would this impact that is a wonder?
|
| Is it a way to solidly say that Sam had no real say with
| authority so anything he and Elon agreed was not binding to the
| company and formally acknowledging that by this action?
| stainablesteel wrote:
| i hope they're forced to convert into a normal for-profit model
|
| give this man the shares he deserves, as well as any seed
| investors, stop all the petty drama and whatnot and let them be a
| company, it just makes sense. there was no way to know where the
| tech was going when they started
| lumos wrote:
| Is the fund actually owned by OpenAI the company or OpenAI the
| non-profit? I thought it was a separate entity that basically had
| the name and Sam's ownership attached, and was owned and operated
| separately.
| lloydatkinson wrote:
| Not a lawyer, what does this mean? Is this yet another attempt by
| OpenAI to remove Sam Altman?
| neom wrote:
| Unrelated to this, I guess?
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39871632
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-01 23:01 UTC)