Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
4/5/2025, 2:10:30 PM
X
In reply to:
Jade Cole
@JadeCole2112
·
308d
@GaryMarcus @KelseyTuoc My understanding (500 foot view) is the for profit entity needs to purchase the NFP assets at "fair market value" - which in the case of OpenAI is billions.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
308d
@JadeCole2112 If memory serves @KelseyTuoc had a good article on this. In this case CA and DE attorney generals would have to sign off on what counts as adequate compensation.
Jade Cole
@JadeCole2112
·
308d
@GaryMarcus Has anyone who’s an expert in corporate law looked at what is involved in becoming a for profit? I don’t think you just decide and it’s done…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
308d
I was there. And I will never forget how Sam played me and the Senate by lying about so many things to our faces.
neil turkewitz
@neilturkewitz
·
308d
Altman’s 2023 Congressional testimony:
“We think that creators deserve control over how their creations are used & what happens sort of beyond the point of them releasing it into the world.”
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com…

@kortizart @ednewtonrex @jason_kint @GaryMarcus

The statement is part of a broader discussion on the transition of OpenAI from a non-profit to a for-profit entity, which involves public interest issues such as fair market value, corporate law, and compensation for creators. The tone is analytical and seeks to clarify a complex aspect of the transition process.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is focused on understanding a complex issue, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by addressing a specific challenge in assessing the value of control in a corporate transition, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive dialogue by contributing to a discussion on corporate law and compensation, without personal attacks, aligning with the principle of constructive criticism. [+1]