She said the quiet part out loud? This was always the play, it is obvious. Too big to fail. National security concerns. China/Russia veer scary. Blah blah blah.

Altman’s libertarian pontification is so obviously insincere it’s laughable.

Just look at Elon’s insane pay package, approved in a landslide. The skulls of the average shareholder must echo like a cave.

And the rich accuse the poor of their poverty being their own fault, because they are just being irresponsible, making bad decisions, and spending unwisely. They should look in the mirror.

> Experts note chief dealmaker Altman doesn’t have anything to lose. He has repeatedly claimed he does not have a stake in the company, and won’t have a stake even after OpenAI has restructured to become a public benefit corporation. “He has the upside, in a sense, in terms of influence, if it all succeeds,” said Ofer Eldar, a corporate governance professor at the UC Berkeley School of Law. “He's taking all this commitment knowing that he's not going to actually face any consequences because he doesn't have a financial stake.”

> That’s not good corporate governance, according to Jo-Ellen Pozner, a professor of management and entrepreneurship at Santa Clara University’s Leavey School of Business. “We allow leaders that we see as being super pioneering to behave idiosyncratically, and when things move in the opposite direction and somebody has to pay, it's unclear that they're the ones that are going to have to pay,” she said.

> Luria adds: “He can commit to as much as he wants. He can commit to a trillion dollars, ten trillion, a hundred trillion dollars. It doesn't matter. Either he uses it, he renegotiates it, or he walks away.” There are of course more indirect stakes for Altman, experts said, like the reputational blow he’d take if the deals fall apart. But on paper, he’d seemingly be off the hook, they said.

Is an intended takehome message of the article that Altman should invest his own money (with potential loss, or profit), or that he should be given a big compensation deal (maybe like the one Musk just got)?

Taking that at face value, it means we would have to invest exponential resources just to get linear improvements. That’s not exactly an optimistic outlook.

OpenAI as an entity is only in trouble if they've bound themselves completely without any way out.

These "commitments" may just function as memorandums of understanding.