If you want to develop a healthy counterpoint to that cynicism, you should consider reading more about Patagonia. Speaking as somebody who's generally cynical about these moves as well.

I'm less read-up on OpenAI. It does feel to me like they've diluted the original non-profit/openness mission to the point of it being an interesting historical quirk, rather than an ongoing, guiding focus.

> you should consider reading more about Patagonia

I'd be open to reading more. I think they are largely a good company but feel like this move was more of a tax dodge and to ensure generational wealth than for altruism. But I am open to being wrong about it.

But everyone involved in OpenAI doesn't give me warm and fuzzy feelings at all. I admit it's largely cynicism until I know more. But there isnt enough time in the day to do real research on every subject and topic that comes up on HN and every other discussion board I participate in, so it's difficult to be knowledgeable about everything and still maintain a life. And even if I was read up on OpenAI, I have zero ability to do anything about it, and it likely won't affect my life in a meaningful way as well (and this is true about most everything I read about to not single out OpenAI as not being worth my time). So it is a little pointless or more of a time waste I admit.

Company with decades of going way, way out of norms to operate as an ethical organization at virtually every level does an additional virtuous task: oh ya that’s a tax dodge

It is, Im not saying they are 100% evil like some companies we discuss on HN. But this was a tax dodge. [1]

[1] https://fortune.com/2022/09/16/patagonia-founder-legal-tax-l...

What do you think that proves? Yes, it does lower your tax bill to give away gains before they're realized. That's because you do not realize your gains. That's called simply "choosing to earn less money."

Tax dodge would imply the purpose is to reduce your tax bill and still see the upside. There's literally no evidence of that. All the upside he/his family sees will continue to be taxed at the normal rate.

If you're Yvon Chouinard, whose goal is to keep Patagonia going in perpetuity as a funding vehicle for environmental activism, what else could you do?

For the record: he divided up the shares into voting and non-voting. He "donated" the dividend-earning shares into a 501c4 foundation whose mission is to invest in grass-roots environmental activism, and "donated" the voting-power shares into a separate trust, whose objectives are to ensure that Patagonia continues on the path he gave as an example for the previous decades and to hold the 501c4 accountable.

The boards of these organizations are composed of the people whom he most trusts to fulfill his vision, a group of people that includes his children.

Knowing the full context of their lives, it's hard to see it as anything other than one of the more simple solutions to a complicated problem.

Oh, I think it's way more of a marketing scam than the Patagonia thing, which I think was kind of legit. This one doesn't even sound legit, even if they do exactly what they say... which is almost nothing. they aren't even really saying they'll do anything different with regard to profit. Patagonia, I think the founder and his heirs really have given up lots of profit they could have had, immediately, to dedicate it to other causes. (I think?) Nobody's given up anything here.

The Patagonia thing was not legit at all according to Adam Hates Everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I

Thank you, I'm interested in this!

If anyone has a good written text account critical of the Patagonia thing, I'm interested in that too; video isn't my preferred consumption format.

That's a usually pretty unreliable source. Especially since he doesn't seem to know a lot about fiscal/tax laws, in a country he doesn't even live in.

Adam's argument seems to be:

1. If instead of donating the company he had left it to his kids he would have paid a lot in taxes (2:58)

2. He donated the voting shares of the company to a 501c4 that will remain controlled by his family and is allowed to lobby the government (4:10)

3. Normally when you make a donation you're giving up influence over what happens after that (4:25).

4. Other billionaires do other things (rest of video)

But #3 isn't actually true: any of us can donate to a donor-advised fund, which will let us later choose what charity we want the money to go to. This is a good idea if you want to donate but haven't decided where to donate yet, or want to fund opportunities that aren't available yet. They did it through new organizations instead of opening an account at Fidelity, but it's the same thing other than the scale. I wouldn't call your donations "not legit" for using a DAF.

Similarly, Adam sort of implies that #2 was tax-deductible, but donations to a 501c4 aren't. They had to pay tax on those shares based on their fair market value.

Overall, I don't see how this makes the donation no longer "legit" or "authentic"? By making the donation he has given up almost all of the benefit of having that money: he can't spend it for the benefit of himself or his descendants anymore. It can't buy them yachts, fancy houses, etc. Instead, they have to use the money to benefit others, which is why we give a tax break for it.

Yeah, ok. I mean I agree with his overall point that we shouldn't be like "oh hooray for the kind-hearted billionairres", there is something in it for them in how they have chosen to donate it of course. And they are still pretty darn wealthy already -- his kids probably still won't need to work, from existing already extracted profits.

But that does seem a lot more real than the OpenAI shenanigans, they have actually done something, and they have given up being even more fabulously wealthy than they are already, even if they still have direction over how the money is used, including lobbying -- both for climate change, but ok, let's say also for things that benefit them.

They've still done something, unlike the OpenAI thing which seems like giving up some future hypothetical probably wouldn't happen anyway profits, and making no difference at all for the foreseeable future -- no difference but PR advantage.

> Overall, I don't see how this makes the donation no longer "legit"?

It not necessarily not legit, but he managed to keep a 3B business under family control and bypass paying around 700M in taxes in doing so. So the altruistic messaging that it was donated to save the world is mildly two-faced. There is nothing wrong with it, but the news stories did leave out a few of the details. I only bring this up because the message about OpenAI being structured in such a way doesn't pass the smell test knowing SV/VC and the key players involved. Again I admit Im cynical and can very well be wrong, it also doesn't affect my life so why do I care, but I bring it up for conversation on HN because I feel its fair to discuss it and the possibilities. [1]

[1] https://fortune.com/2022/09/16/patagonia-founder-legal-tax-l...

All I can say is that once you get to a certain level of wealth, money really is just a means to an end. The fact that they have less doesn't matter if they get their ends, one of which in this case is substantial influence over whatever organization they set up with this money.

Right, like all those cryptocurrency companies structured as non-profit foundations in Switzerland.