The thesis is as follows:<p>OpenAI receives funds as a non-profit.<p>Some of those funds are redirected to for profit ventures.<p>Critically, the GM (Altman) of the nonprofit owns shares of the for-profit ventures, that OpenAI funds were redirected into.<p>A regular company could and does invest in any company even when there's a conflict, as long as the conflict is disclosed and the Board votes in favor of it. There's no criminal element there.<p>The problem is introduced in Altman's case if<p>(a) there was no disclosure (red flag) and/or<p>(b) nonprofit that received the funds, is putting money into things not aligned with the 501(c)(3) mission.<p>I'm not sure if either (a) or (b) are criminal, but they don't pass the smell test, which is why Altman is being sued in civil court, unrelated to the congressional investigation talked about in the article
The thesis is Altman ran around saying he was building something that will kill everyone, then backed off to saying he’ll just kill everyone’s jobs.<p>When data centers and a war of choice pushed inflation to 7+% [1], Republicans in the Congress were left scrambling for a scapegoat. And Sam is a <i>terrific</i> scapegoat. He has no public shareholders like the more hated Zuckerberg and Bezos [2]. Yet he has carved for himself a uniquely-visibly throne for a private-company boss. (His only rival for scapegoatiness is Musk. But he’s inoculated from Republicans by his blatant partisanship.)<p>[1] <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm</a> <i>0.6% MoM in April, 0.9% MoM in March</i><p>[2] <a href="https://techoversight.org/2025/06/11/tech-ceo-poll-25/" rel="nofollow">https://techoversight.org/2025/06/11/tech-ceo-poll-25/</a>
Doesn't Sam Altman famously not own OpenAI? His whole arrangement is so shady.
Is there a more benign explanation for these things? Altman is undeniably famously cagey and political but despite most of the tech and non-tech worlds at this point seeing him as some kind of con artist, I still kind of want to try to believe he's not.<p>No doubt some of OpenAI's founding principles like "stop + assist if a competitor gets to AGI first" are likely flying out the window, perhaps in part due to him and also as one might anticipate of initial lofty ideals and promises, but even with the recent New Yorker and other articles he seems like someone who maybe regularly placates people to avoid personal problems and lies to get out of trouble rather than a Machiavellian tech baron.
> he seems like someone who maybe regularly placates people to avoid personal problems and lies to get out of trouble rather than a Machiavellian tech baron.<p>This would be more plausible were it not for the staggering amount of wealth he’s amassed through those lies.
When someone tells you who they are, you should believe them.
> ... I still kind of want to try to believe he's not.<p>Asking genuinely - why?
He will say whatever it takes to get the result he wants. That's manipulative and, when pursued as a lifestyle, sociopathic.<p>Living like that is corrupting. When you treat humans like objects, the question of your starting intentions is really secondary.
We already reached agi a while ago.
<i>>The problem is introduced in Altman's case if (a) there was no disclosure (red flag)</i><p>The article says the investments were disclosed:<p><i>"OpenAI board chairman Bret Taylor defended Altman in a court hearing Monday, testifying that Altman had been “forthright” and “proactive and transparent” about his involvements in other companies. Altman recused himself from recent discussions about a deal between OpenAI and Helion as well, The Wall Street Journal reported."</i>
Even if the board votes in favor, wouldn't it be tax evasion to fund a for-profit corporation using a 503(c)(3) - which is tax deductible for donors?
No, non profits can invest in anything. Publicly traded stocks are c-corps too, thats how endowments grow. There is nothing that distinguishes liquid vs illiquid c-corp shares.<p>Regarding founder ownership, the rules are extremely flexible like a non profit director can’t own more than 20 voting or 35% total of the business venture<p>but if it happens then it just needs to be remedied within 3 years<p>so for venture style deals that’s plenty of time to dilute down, and the little known secret in the startup space is that the founders non profit steps in as the lead investor, so all the other investors arent just twiddling their thumbs waiting for a founder to convince someone, it just closes. Other investors dilute founder and non profit, everything is compliant, value is created. Both for profit and non profit side will be tax free, due to QSBS
some of the largest for profit investors are non-profits.<p>It is all about if you can get the money back out.
no, the thesis is: can the fascists control sam altman.
That is emphatically <i>NOT</i> the thesis of the linked article. That's the argument made by the politicians being quoted and enumerated. What the article is trying to tell you is that these actions are entirely partisan, and reflect the desires and statements of the largest and wealthiest republican donor, who happens to own a competing interest.<p>You can think Altman is a bad person and OpenAI is something of a scam and still recognize that using the government as a tool to corruptly hobble your competition is a horrifyingly bad thing.<p>These are awful times we live in, I really fear what we'll have to be telling our grandkids. Will it be just a cautionary tale about the dangers of populism and partisanship or will it be sad, wistful tales about how much better things were... "before"?
I can't help but think that this is due to Musk putting pressure on the current administration to help him win his lawsuit and punish Altman.
> The moves follow an April article in The Wall Street Journal that detailed Altman’s efforts to have OpenAI back companies he personally invested in.<p>Sounds a bit like Wework.
To be fair, a big part of being in Y Combinator itself is being "heavily encouraged" to use products from other Y Combinators. You just have to do it <i>openly</i>.
Networking and relationship building is fine. its when it goes beyond that, and in particular when there are conflicts of interest, it becomes a problem. Altman seems to have had similar issues when he was at YC: <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may-control-our-future-can-he-be-trusted" rel="nofollow">https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may...</a><p>Doing business with companies connected to the CEO often creates a conflict of interest. it could all be OK, of course, but OpenAI investing in companies that Altman has already invested in does not look great and needs to be investigated.
Everything about OpenAI sounds like WeWork. Can't wait to see that S1, I'll need a truckload of popcorn.
So, the protection racket is not working? [1] Maybe some folks need to re-think whether this administration is worth "donating" to?<p>[1]: <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openai-exec-becomes-top-trump-230342268.html" rel="nofollow">https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openai-exec-becomes-top-trump...</a>
This story is about congressmen and state attorneys calling for an SEC investigation, not the executive<p>Which was motivated by a WSJ investigation into Sam’s personal dealings <a href="https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/chatgpt-openai-ipo-altman-029ae6d5" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/chatgpt-openai-ipo-altman-029ae6...</a>
Are you complaining that government is not corrupt enough?
That seems like a fairly obvious misreading of the comment.
He's saying "hey, maybe stop donating to Republicans expecting them to help you out when in reality they will screw over anyone but themselves and especially don't donate to them when the GOP is aggressively homophobic and wants to get rid of your existence entirely"
Blackmailers and protection rackets aren't known for being satisfied after a single payment, after they've established someone is willing to pay.<p>That is why public corruption is such as plague and one of the reasons the US dollar was seen as a safe store of value once.
Does anyone really believe this is more than performative? Increasingly the most likely outcome of such scrutiny is… nothing. He hasn’t stolen enough from the rich to earn any sort of punishment, and he’s not doing anything too different from the Congress critters that are “investigating” him.
When his company goes tits-up and connected investors lose billions, he'll suddenly face punishment.
"hasn’t stolen enough from the rich to earn any sort of punishment". Do you truly believe this is how the world works?
I am sure that nothing illegal was done here.<p>But the fact that OpenAI was a nonprofit and then suddenly became a for-profit is definitely something that does not feel right. I am 100% sure that it is all legal and such, but we have this mental model that “nonprofits are the good guys, run by people who just want to help humanity and nothing else.”<p>But that is not true, and probably never was.
Alternative to archive.ph<p>Text-only, HTTPS optional<p>No CAPTCHA, no Javascript, no geo-blocking, no DDoS directed at blog<p><a href="https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA22Xx2j/" rel="nofollow">https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA22Xx2j...</a><p>Something like<p><pre><code> x=https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA22Xx2j/
tnftp -4o"|sed 's/.*\"body\":\"/<meta charset=utf-8>/;s/\",\"readTimeMin.*//'" $x > 1.htm
firefox ./1.htm
</code></pre>
or<p><pre><code> links https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA22Xx2j/
Press "d" then "\"
</code></pre>
or<p><pre><code> links -dump https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA22Xx2j/ \
|sed '1,/\"body\":\"/d;/\"readTimeMin\":/,$d'</code></pre>
The Internet is borked.<p>Verification Required<p>The visual verification might not be accessible to you. We recommend you to use the audio verification instead. Important: after clicking play, you will hear 6 digits. Please wait until the audio finishes before typing or interacting with the page.
No Internet access
Why is this verification required?
Something about the behaviour of the browser has caught our attention.<p>There are various possible explanations for this:<p><pre><code> you are browsing and clicking at a speed much faster than expected of a human being
something is preventing Javascript from working on your computer
there is a robot on the same network (IP 96.51.144.101) as you
</code></pre>
Need help?<p>ID: 85804002-38eb-95f6-1a32-828ec222a8fb
<a href="https://archive.ph/oqVDm" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/oqVDm</a>
Timing's also worth nothing. the investments piece has been reported on for over a year. It becomes a probe right before liquidity, which makes both sides look opportunistic rather than principled.
Ah a shakedown. He will make the required donation and this will go away.
Brockman already did, to the tune of $25 million: <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openai-exec-becomes-top-trump-230342268.html" rel="nofollow">https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openai-exec-becomes-top-trump...</a><p>Trouble is, Elon Musk indirectly gave him even more.
Demand his AI chat history be made public!
They aren't going to do a thing to Altman except extract more bribes.
GREAT NEWS!!!
How can anyone take the GOP seriously when they constantly back one of the biggest frauds of the American people who is also a pedophile rapist? Perhaps Sam should embrace that sexual assault allegation from his sister. That seems to be the type of person the GOP supports.
> Business Dealings Under GOP Scrutiny<p>Is this even a thing anymore?
The notion that this GOP Oversight Committee sincerely cares about corruption is obviously laughable, so I can only assume this is all being done at Elon's behest.
This can easily be resolved by a sustantial purchase of Trump family crypto.
Altman is a consummate liar and insatiably greedy. The GOP will welcome him in. The downfall will hurt many.<p>In the words of Hitchens, "Do not imagine that you can escape judgment if you rob people with a false prospectus rather than with a knife."
[flagged]
Is this why Claude recommended that I use a Trump phone when I use it?