[jelling]

> What exactly is the problem here? Is a non-profit expected to exclusively help impoverished communities or something?

Yes. Yes and more yes.

That is why, at least in the U.S., we have given non-profits exemptions from taxation. Because they are supposed to be improving society, not profiting from it.

[arrosenberg]

> That is why, at least in the U.S., we have given non-profits exemptions from taxation.

That's your belief. The NFL, Heritage Foundation and Scientology are all non-profits and none of them improve society; they all profit from it.

(For what its' worth, I wish the law was more aligned with your worldview)

[tsimionescu]

Ostensibly, all three of your examples do exist to improve society. The NFL exists to support a widely popular sport, the Heritage Foundation is there to propose changes that they theoretically believe are better for society, and Scientology is a religion that will save us all from our bad thetans or whatever cockamamie story they sell.

A non-profit has to have the intention of improving society. Whether their chosen means is (1) effective and (2) truthful are separate discussions. But an entity can actually lose non-profit status if it is found to be operated for the sole benefit of its higher ups, and is untruthful in its mission. It is typically very hard to prove though, just like it's very hard to successfully sue a for-profit CEO/president for breach of fiduciary duty.

[twelvechairs]

> OpenAIs goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. OpenAI believes that artificial intelligence technology has the potential to have a profound, positive impact on the world, so the companys goal is to develop and responsibly deploy safe AI technology, ensuring that its benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible.

From their filing as a non-profit

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/810...

[aurareturn]

FYI, the NFL teams are for profits and pay taxes like normal busineses. The overwhelming majority of the revenue goes to the teams.

[mschuster91]

> The NFL, Heritage Foundation and Scientology are all non-profits and none of them improve society; they all profit from it.

At least for Scientology, the government actually tried to pull the rug, but it didn't work out because they managed to achieve the unthinkable - they successfully extorted the US government to keep their tax-exempt status.

[some1else]

Starting OpenAI as a fork of Scientology from the get go would have saved everyone a great deal of hair splitting.

[ameister14]

No - that's the reasoning behind the law.

You appear to be struggling with the idea that the law as enacted does not accomplish the goal it was created to accomplish and are working backwards to say that because it is not accomplishing this goal that couldn't have been why it was enacted.

Non-profits are supposed to benefit their community. Could the law be better? Sure, but that doesn't change the purpose behind it.

[whelp_24]

The NFL also is a non-profit in charge of for-profits. Except they never pretended to be a charity, just an event organizer.

[turquoisevar]

Bad actors exploiting good things isn’t in and of itself an indictment of said good things.

[gardenhedge]

An argument could be made that sports - and a sports organization - helps society

[mensetmanusman]

it's also your belief that sports like the nfl do not improve society ...

beliefs can't be proven or disproven, they are axioms.

[depr]

So what is your belief about why they exist?

[todd3834]

I don’t think OpenAI ever reported to be profitable. They are allowed and should make money so they can stay alive. ChatGPT has already had a tremendous positive impact on society. The cause of safe AGI is going to take a lot of money in more research.

[shafyy]

> ChatGPT has already had a tremendous positive impact on society.

Citation needed