OpenAI stands apart in the world of technology giants—not just for its breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, but for the way it’s governed. Unlike most companies, OpenAI’s board isn’t focused on maximizing shareholder value. Instead, it’s legally bound to a mission that sounds almost utopian: ensuring that artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits all of humanity.
This unique structure has sparked heated debates, especially as OpenAI’s influence and valuation have soared. The company’s nonprofit board, tasked with guiding the world’s leading AI lab, faces mounting pressure from investors and partners. The question at the heart of the matter: Who should control OpenAI, and by extension, the future of AGI?
The Origins: A Mission for Humanity
When OpenAI was founded in 2015, the idea of AGI—AI that could perform nearly all economically valuable work—seemed like science fiction. But the founders believed that if such technology ever became real, it would be too powerful to be left in the hands of profit-driven corporations. They structured OpenAI as a nonprofit, promising to put humanity’s interests above all else.
This wasn’t just a feel-good mission statement. The nonprofit structure was designed to shield OpenAI from the relentless drive for profits that could lead to risky shortcuts or decisions that might endanger society. The board’s fiduciary duty was to the public, not to investors.
Tensions Rise: Profit vs. Purpose
As OpenAI’s technology advanced and its valuation skyrocketed, the tension between its nonprofit mission and the realities of raising capital became clear. In 2019, OpenAI created a “capped for-profit” arm to attract investment, but the nonprofit board retained ultimate control. This hybrid model was meant to balance the need for funding with the original mission.
However, recent events—including the brief firing and reinstatement of CEO Sam Altman—have exposed cracks in this structure. Some investors and board members have pushed for OpenAI to become a public benefit corporation, like its competitors Anthropic and X.ai. This would allow the company to operate more like a traditional business, with a legal obligation to consider public good alongside profits.
The Legal and Ethical Debate
A new open letter from legal scholars, Nobel laureates, and former OpenAI employees argues that selling the nonprofit’s control would be both illegal and a betrayal of its mission. They contend that the power to guide AGI’s development is “literally priceless” and that the board’s duty to humanity cannot be measured in dollars.
Public benefit corporations, while promising in theory, have weak enforcement mechanisms. Only shareholders—not the public—can hold them accountable in court. This means that, in practice, profit often outweighs public interest.
Why This Matters for Everyone
The stakes couldn’t be higher. AGI has the potential to reshape economies, societies, and even the future of humanity. If its development is driven solely by profit, there’s a risk that safety, ethics, and the broader public good could take a back seat.
For now, the fate of OpenAI’s governance may rest with state attorneys general in California and Delaware, who have the authority to intervene if the nonprofit board tries to relinquish control. Their decision could set a precedent for how society manages the immense power of advanced AI.
Actionable Takeaways
- Stay informed about AI governance debates—these decisions will shape the future for everyone.
- Support transparency and accountability in AI development, whether through advocacy or by choosing to engage with responsible organizations.
- Encourage policymakers to prioritize public interest in technology regulation.
Summary: Key Points
- OpenAI’s nonprofit structure was designed to ensure AGI benefits all of humanity, not just shareholders.
- Recent debates center on whether to maintain this model or shift to a for-profit public benefit corporation.
- Legal experts argue that selling nonprofit control would violate fiduciary duties to the public.
- Public benefit corporations may not offer sufficient accountability to ensure public good.
- The outcome of this debate will have far-reaching implications for the future of AI and society.