The AI industry faces a critical turning point as dozens of former OpenAI employees have published an open letter titled “Not For Private Gain,” urging California and Delaware attorneys general to block OpenAI’s proposed restructuring from a nonprofit to a for-profit entity. This move has sparked serious questions about the future of AI development, safety, and who ultimately benefits from advanced AI systems.
The Core Issue
When OpenAI was founded in 2015, it made a bold promise: to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI) that would benefit all of humanity rather than serve private interests. This wasn’t just marketing language—it was built into the legal structure of the organization as a nonprofit with a specific charitable purpose.
The open letter claims the restructuring would fundamentally betray this founding principle. As one former employee put it, “OpenAI was created specifically because developing AGI purely for profit was considered too dangerous.” The nonprofit setup wasn’t accidental but intentional—designed as a safety mechanism to ensure decisions wouldn’t be driven by financial goals.
What Makes This Different from Standard Corporate Changes
What sets this apart from typical corporate restructuring is the technology at stake. AGI—a system with human-level or greater intelligence across virtually all domains—could create what Sam Altman himself described as “the light cone of all future value in the universe.” Put simply, the economic value and power from true AGI would be nearly limitless.
The original structure had strict profit caps to ensure most benefits would flow back to the nonprofit, representing humanity as a whole. The open letter alleges these caps are being removed due to investor pressure, potentially transferring vast future wealth from “humanity at large to OpenAI shareholders.”
The Legal Accountability Gap
A point receiving less attention in mainstream coverage is how this change affects legal oversight. Under the current structure, public officials have legal authority to ensure OpenAI sticks to its mission. If restructured as a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC), this direct public oversight would significantly weaken.
While PBCs do have stated public benefits, enforcement shifts primarily to shareholders whose main interest typically aligns with financial returns. This creates a crucial gap in accountability that could affect how AI safety gets prioritized when tough decisions arise.
From Safety Safeguards to “Obstacles”
Perhaps most striking is how quickly OpenAI’s position has changed. In May 2023, Sam Altman testified to Congress that OpenAI’s nonprofit control and profit caps were “essential safeguards” ensuring focus on its mission. Less than two years later, these same mechanisms are now framed as “obstacles” to progress.
This reversal raises questions about what changed. Did something about the technology shift dramatically in this short time? Or did financial pressures from investors seeking returns on billions in funding cause the change in perspective?
The “Stop and Assist” Promise
One of the most unusual promises in OpenAI’s charter was its “stop and assist” commitment. If another “value-aligned, safety-conscious project” got close to building AGI before OpenAI, the company promised to stop competing and start helping that project instead.
This promise aimed to prevent a dangerous race to deploy AGI before proper safety measures were in place. The letter argues this commitment would likely be abandoned under a profit-driven structure where competitive pressure and investor demands would make such cooperation nearly impossible.
Beyond Theory: Specific Concerns
The former employees aren’t just making theoretical arguments. They list specific concerns about OpenAI’s recent actions:
- Testing processes becoming less thorough with insufficient resources for risk identification
- Safety testing rushed to meet product release schedules
- Failure to dedicate promised computing resources to AGI safety teams
- Restrictive non-disparagement agreements for departing employees that limit public awareness of internal issues
These points suggest the mission drift isn’t just theoretical but already happening, with potentially serious consequences for AI safety practices.
What This Means for Businesses and AI Developers
For businesses working with AI technologies or planning AI integration, this controversy highlights important considerations about governance structures. Companies should ask:
- How are the AI tools we use governed, and what incentives drive their development?
- What safety processes are in place at the companies building our AI infrastructure?
- Are there transparency mechanisms that let us verify safety claims?
For AI developers, this case study shows the tensions between rapid innovation, investor expectations, and safety commitments. Building clear governance structures from the start that can withstand financial pressure becomes crucial.
Alternative Models Worth Exploring
The OpenAI situation isn’t just a problem—it’s an opportunity to consider better governance models for powerful AI systems. Some possibilities include:
- Hybrid structures with stronger legal protections for the public benefit mission
- Trust-based models where technology ownership has binding public interest requirements
- International governance frameworks for the most powerful AI systems
- Distributed oversight with multiple stakeholders having meaningful input
Each model offers different trade-offs between innovation speed, safety, and distribution of benefits.
The Bigger Picture
The fight over OpenAI’s structure matters far beyond one company. It sets precedents for how we handle increasingly powerful AI technologies and who benefits from them. As one signatory put it, “This is about whether the most powerful technology in human history will be controlled by a small group of investors or developed with meaningful public accountability.”
As these systems grow more capable, the decisions made now about ownership, control, and mission will shape society for decades. Companies building or using AI technologies should watch this case closely—it may define the rules of the road for the entire industry.
For those watching this unfold, the key question isn’t just whether OpenAI will change its structure, but whether we’re building the right frameworks to ensure AI truly benefits everyone. This moment may be remembered as a critical fork in the road for AI governance—when we either found a balanced path forward or allowed concentrated power and profit to determine AI’s future.
The next steps taken by regulators, OpenAI leadership, and the broader tech community will tell us much about whether we’re prepared for the challenges that increasingly powerful AI will bring.
