Everyone benefits from the gains, everyone gets more customers and more investment.

People may be altruistic, but in a company setting they may have no possibility for altruism. CEO decisions influence property of others (the shareholders) so he can not freely pursue altruistic goals.

I heard that Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. was an important precedent in the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

These days the courts give wide latitude to companies to offer virtually any plausible reason why superficially altruistic acts are in fact good long term for shareholder value. Anyone wanting to do what Ford did just needs to keep their mouth shut about the real reasons.

Interesting. Do you know any particular court cases?

My wikipedia link above in turn links to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_primacy, which says in the last paragraph: "The doctrine waned in later years."

This probably confirms what you say, but I'd be interested to learn about specific cases.

It isn’t altruism! It’s good business: it pursues economic gain through mutual benefit.

It's such a rapidly developing field with much of the progress happening in small labs on the open source models. Eventually, the field will coverage and stabilize. For now, the bet is too be open and supportive, to be close to the progress and be in best position when the dust settles.

> it's that we are accustomed to short-term, transactional, Wall Street thinking from companies like Google.

Out of all of the companies in the world, I wouldn't put Google near the bottom of the list in terms of stuff they've discovered and released to the world.