What's the moral principle here: if you have taken any money from person X, then if person X feels like it, you must sell out to them?
Both of you can now ask ChatGPT to explain the law to you and it will.
They're also clearly not "completely different things." That would imply no overlap, yet I find laws embody plenty of things I find ethical. If you find nothing in the law ethical then I certainly do not want your ethics.
So I'll gladly take law on the whole over a person on the internet's as hoc flavor of ethics.
Even in that time, there were many who could see that regardless of laws, the slaughter was not ethical. Others, committed atrocities for profit and consoled themselves that they were following the law.
It’s generally a bad sign when someone answers questions of ethics with law. People constrained only by the law with no further ethical concerns do terrible things, right up to the limit of what the legal system they live under allows.
To be clear, I am not claiming sama is unconcerned with ethics. I’m pushing back against conflating ethics with legality.
Yes there's outliers. But that's all they are. As ethics change, laws change, and vice versa. Neither exists or even is workable without the other. What is ethical in one time or place or situation changes, just like laws, and for the same reason- they're cultural constructs that evolve.
As to claiming ethics is superior to law, history is also filled with people having different ethics going outside the law and causing great harm, genocides, and wars. Ethics is not defined in any universal sense. One could argue every lawbreaker has different ethics than those not breaking laws.
Again, I prefer a society where people follow societally agreed upon laws over ones where everyone choose their own ethics and acts accordingly.
But of the two, only law is stable enough to run a society. It's what balances all the variety of ethical issues between beliefs.
Being a minority investor doesn't give Musk God powers. And he resigned from the board by his own choice.
However… non-profit is largely a tax designation. In exchange for tax exemptions, non-profits can’t basically give their profits to shareholders.
While the IRS does outline general examples of what we think of as charitable organizations, and the thing you claimed probably isn’t terribly clean (they do specify that nobody should profit from it, and one could claim that the for profit OpenAI is profiting from the non-profit, so is Microsoft), being a non-profit generally says next to nothing about morals.
It’s probably closer to an academic institution spinning off a company from the product of its research, which happens quite often.
If it weren't for the spinning up the private company, perhaps they wouldn't have the money to get where they are now and they would be yet another snow flake in the AI Winter?
How much of that was achieved while the company was a non-profit and how much was the value added once they spun off the for profit company?
Did OpenAI the non-profit give any secret sauce to the for-profit arm?
How does this relate to the many spinoffs from educational institutions that also receive donations and/or taxpayer money?