Interesting and insightful read - definitely seems like someone has been paying attention throughout.

I can't get past this snippet:

> they ultimately had no leverage because they weren’t a for-profit company with the capital to be truly independent.

Maybe I don't understand non-profits, but.. they're allowed to amass a war chest for expansion and to pay for dependencies, right? They're not compelled by charter to have no capital like some sort of a corporate equivalent of a monk -- it's just OpenAI that did not have enough capital to grant them better negotiating terms. How is that different from any other startup that gives up ownership of its IP in exchange for investment?