I think you have it backwards. OpenAI specifically sought out investors because they couldn't fulfill their mission without the infrastructure to do it. Investors don't just give money away -- it's in the name itself -- they're investing. The point is for the commercial enterprise to provide a return on their investment.
OpenAI is a non-profit running this commercial enterprise but they are seemingly at odds with that enterprise. Investors should rightly be very concerned about the future of their investment.
Those investors were appropriately warned of this possibility:
> IMPORTANT
> *Investing in OpenAl Global, LLC is a high-risk investment*
> *Investors could lose their capital contribution and not see any return*
> *It would be wise to view any investment in OpenAI Global, LLC in the spirit of a donation, with the understanding that it may be difficult to know what role money will play in a post-AGI world*
> The Company exists to advance OpenAl, Inc.'s mission of ensuring that safe artificial general intelligence is developed and benefits all of humanity. The Company's duty to this mission and the principles advanced in the OpenAl, Inc. Charter take precedence over any obligation to generate a profit. The Company may never make a profit, and the Company is under no obligation to do so. The Company is free to re-invest any or all of the Company's cash flow into research and development activities and/or related expenses without any obligation to the Members.
I guess maybe they thought it was the same boilerplate every prospectus has?
High-risk investments are not rare. To argue that OpenAI can do whatever they want for whatever reason because they state that it's high-risk is not how anything works.
Investors should rightly be concerned about things like gross negligence, active sabotage, or simple infighting. These are all current human concerns and not at all that AGI will destroy the concept of money rendering all investments pointless.
Most high-risk investments still come with an understanding that the recipient will have a duty to the investor, making decisions that they believe in good-faith will lead to a return on that investment on some time-frame.
This one is very much an explicit, "You're giving us a donation. Don't expect a return." It's in an impossible-to-miss pink box. They can't be more clear about this.
If investors are concerned about those things, then they should not give money to people who pointedly leave those things on the table. Like this one:
> The Nonprofit’s principal beneficiary is humanity, not OpenAI investors.
Also, Microsoft got something for their money already. They have an independent license to the tech they can run themselves and iterate on.
The OpenAI board has no duty to Microsoft to get their input. MS might have believed their investment amounted to de facto control, but they're wrong.
I think they make it quite clear what they mean by statement. If they wish to accept donations they can freely do so but they did not. It's an investment with all the current expectations. Any investor based on that statement should expect either a return or the end of capitalism itself.
The OpenAI prominently states that any investment should be thought of as a donation. Literally in a bold pinkish-red box that describes its corporate structure.
An investor might read that and think they don't actually mean it, but you can't claim they weren't clear about the nature of any required investment.
The bold purple box is explicitly talking about “OpenAI Global, LLC”, which _is_ the “for profit” company.
See also: “OpenAI LP’s primary fiduciary obligation is to advance the aims of the OpenAI Charter, and the company is controlled by OpenAI Nonprofit’s board. All investors and employees sign agreements that OpenAI LP’s obligation to the Charter always comes first, even at the expense of some or all of their financial stake.” --https://openai.com/blog/openai-lp
To emphasize, they will not take your investment money until you've signed an agreement saying that you're aware of all of this.
OpenAI is a non-profit running this commercial enterprise but they are seemingly at odds with that enterprise. Investors should rightly be very concerned about the future of their investment.