Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
Jaden Schaefer
Foreign to the AI Chat podcast, I'm your host, Jaden Schaefer. Today on the podcast, we're talking about the fact that Sam Altman, who famously told Congress he never owned any equity, might actually have owned some equity in OpenAI. In addition to that, a whole bunch of drama in converting them from a nonprofit to a for profit. Some lawsuits recently launched against them, and some letters that Meta has sent to the government over in California. Kind of trying to get in the way of this move by OpenAI. There's a lot of drama, a lot of interesting things to unpack here. Before we get into it, I wanted to say, if you've ever wanted to start an online side hustle, or grow and scale your current business using AI tools, I would love to have you as a member of the AI Hustle school community. Every single week, me and my co host Jamie, we create an exclusive piece of content over there that we don't share anywhere else that breaks down a tool, a strategy, or a way that we are using AI to grow and scale and make money. It's $19 a month. Last week it was a hundred dollars a month. We dropped the price for a holiday special. So if you've ever been interested in making money online, this would be an amazing time to do it. There's a link in the description where you can find out more about this. And we have a classroom section with dozens and dozens of videos we've already created. We've been doing this for about a year now. Um, we have videos all about AI marketing, all of the strategies that we've used to grow our businesses. We have videos about becoming an AI consultant. I have a friend that made over $500,000 consulting companies as an AI consultant. We have a bunch of different ideas from that in here, as well as all sorts of ideas for podcasting. A strategy I use to make $12,000 within a few months with just a few videos on a program called the Amazon Influencer program. There's a whole bunch of really great ideas in here. So if you're interested, you can click the link in the description to find out more. Let's get back to the podcast. So a lot of the really interesting stuff happening here really stems from the fact that, you know, in my opinion, if Sam Altman was just like, yo, look, I have a AI company, I'm making money like everybody else, there'd be no controversy here. The controversy with OpenAI is really how they got started as a nonprofit. They raised hundreds of millions of dollars, and I didn't Real just how big of a valuation they had back in those early days. So recently, of course, Sam Altman, back in 2023, he went to Congress and he, you know, testified to Congress saying that he owned no equity in OpenAI. He told them that he was doing this because he loved it, that there was nothing that he really got out of it. And I'll play a little clip from him saying just that. Okay. You make a lot of money, do you? I make no. I paid enough for health insurance. I have no equity in OpenAI. Really? That's interesting. You need a lawyer. I need a what? You need a lawyer or an agent? I'm doing this because I love it. Okay. So Sam Altman says he's doing this because he loves it. That's the only reason that he's doing this. Some people were skeptical back then, and it turns out it wasn't actually quite true because he recently did an interview with with Bari Weiss where he said that he actually did have some equity in OpenAI through a sequoia fund. At one point he said that he's since sold this stake, but there might actually be even more equity that he owns through other ways. So to me, this is very, very interesting kind of what's going on here just for the fact that I feel like all the time I'll see these tech executives go and kind of testify before Congress about different things. And sometimes they say the most shocking things like, oh, I have no equity in this company I'm working on and. And then come to find out later they do, for example. And I feel like nothing ever happens to them. I think the TikTok CEO went to Congress and allegedly lied to them about some of the Chinese ties. I just feel like this is happening. Mark Zuckerberg, a lot of people say, has done the same thing. So anyways, I just feel like there's not a ton of accountability. And I also feel like there's nothing wrong with having equity. But the way he started this company definitely makes it seem like there's some suspicious here. So here's what he specifically said. He said, I have a tiny sliver of equity from an old YC fund. I used to have some via Sequoia fund, but that one turned out to be easier to sell and not keep the position in. So I have a very small amount that's quite insignificant to me in terms of what I will or won't have going forward. I don't know. There's no current plan of promise for me to get anything. Okay, so this breaks it all down. He had some of the Sequoia Fund. He sold that allegedly. He, he said he has a sliver of equity from an old YC fund. And that one he said, you know, wasn't as easy as the Sequoia want to sell, AKA he still has some equity from the YC fund. So I mean, I'm not trying to nitpick and be like, oh, I don't know, like there's nothing wrong with having equity, but this should have been disclosed a long time ago. How come this is just being disclosed in a, you know, a brand new podcast with Barry Weiss this week when this is something that's been going on for, for forever. He's, he's had this forever and he went to Congress, he never testified. So to me, that's the only shady thing about this. Like how did this news come out? Maybe, maybe he's worried other people would realize and he was trying to front run it. I don't know. In any case, what's really interesting here is that they posted this on their own website that he had this kind of indirect investment in Y Combinator. So they, they have a little bit of that published. And I'm not exactly sure when this went live or when people exactly found out about this, but there is a bit of a chart that they kind of have outlined and, and some of this stuff is a little bit public. So that's very interesting. Okay, so how much was this actually worth? How much was a stake actually worth in this? Did it actually go up? Is this even significant? No one will actually tell us exactly how much money it's worth. Sequoia first invested in OpenAI back in 2021, and that's according to its website. And this is two years after Sam Altman essentially became the CEO, meaning when, when they made this initial investment, Sequoia into OpenAI. OpenAI's valuation was $14 billion. Now today, it's obviously grown significantly. Today, OpenAI's valuation, according to TechCrunch and according to the latest, latest rounds of funding that they've done is that is at $150 billion. This is the rate latest funding round. They just did it this year. They raised $6.6.6 billion raised and so now it's valued at $157 billion. So essentially what that means from the $14 billion when Sequoia got in is that they are up 10x from this, you know, from this original point that he got in. How much did he put in? How much is it worth? I don't know. All of that's kind of convoluted but it's like regardless of all of that, he's made 10x on his money. So some people might say isn't that much since, I don't know, 2021, but that's only three years ago. So anyways, it's very interesting. So obviously this has grown a lot but because of the way Sequoia works, it's very difficult. You know, they, they're not required to disclose their limited partners. So it's very unclear how much Altman actually sold his stake for how much money he made from this. Even if he went to Congress and said he has no equity, he sold his equity. So he has made money from it one way or another. And he obviously had the hopes of making more money because he's as they're converting this to a non a for profit. A lot of people are saying he's going to get equity in that and they're sort of denying it. But something really telling is what he said in his interview with Barry Weiss. He said, in terms of what I will or won't have going forward, I don't know. There's no current plans or promises from me. For me to get anything, I don't know is a lot different than I'm not going to ever take any equity. Like I've been saying to everyone forever, there's no current plan. I, I mean I can imagine them commerce to a for profit in a year or two. They, they give him a package. So there's no current plan. But he's, he's definitely not ruling out getting equity in this in the future. And again, nothing wrong with that. It's just, you know, a lot of people are, rubs them the wrong way because of the way this company started. So what is really interesting is exactly what an OpenAI spokesperson recently said about this. They said Sam has never had any direct ownership in OpenAI. He held a negligible stake, less than a fraction of a percent in a General Sequoia fund with a broad portfolio, which he later learned included minimal exposure to Open AI. Sam no longer has any ongoing commitments to the fund, so could theoretically be, you know, whatever. They just, he had some money in a fund and they ended up go, you know, investing in OpenAI. I find it hard to believe since he'd been CEO for two years that he didn't know, actually impossible to believe he didn't know that Sequoia was investing and he had money in Sequoia. But whatever it's Just, I don't know, it's just interesting when it says like. Which he later learned included minimal exposure to open AI. Like, how could he not know he was the CEO. CEO for two years before they made the investment. And you know, all your investors, trust me, as a, as a guy working in tech, making startups, raising money, you know your investors, you know who's putting money in. So in any case, most CEOs do have equities in the companies they run. This is very normal. This is usually a huge chunk of CEO pay. Look at Elon Musk. He makes a massive percentage of his salary. Isn't even a salary. He says he doesn't take a salary, he just takes equity in the company and tries to grow. This is normal. And actually like this, that being said, it just rubs people the wrong way because of how this company started. Okay, again, because OpenAI was founded as a non profit, had a very strange structure. Sam Altman has repeatedly said he doesn't own any. And just a month ago he also said that he had no equity in OpenAI during the new York Times Book Deal Summit. So again, just a month ago, saying he had no equity in this thing. And he does technically have a sliver of equity from yc, so he does have some equity. I guess he's saying it's not a, it's a negligible amount, but it does exist. Okay. Also on the, on the all in podcast back in May, he said sort of the same thing. So in any case, what is increasingly making this relevant is the fact that OpenAI is becoming, you know, is working on transitioning to a for profit company which is going to be controlled by a nonprofit board and it's essentially going to be an independent company. They're also contemplating giving him some Equity. Everyone at OpenAI and some Altman have denied that, but this is some of the leaks that we were seeing. This is. Although at risk, Elon Musk is currently suing OpenAI in their transition to a for profit company because, you know, he said, hey, I invested and gave you hundreds of millions of dollars when this was a nonprofit. Now you're transitioning. What's really interesting though is is allegedly OpenAI made a alleged claim recently saying that Elon Musk actually wanted to convert to a for profit himself. And because he didn't get to do it, now he's mad about it. So that's also an interesting claim. Another interesting part or thing that has recently happened, Sam Altman, when he's talking to Barry Weiss, he essentially said, Elon Musk is a bully who clearly likes to get into fights. And in addition to this, Meta recently sent a letter to California's Attorney General asking to block OpenAI's transition to a for profit company. Um, and they actually, I read the letter and it was quite compelling. But he had an interesting statement on this where he said, I don't know why Meta sent that letter. I do know that. I do know they know that's not how it works. I know that part is in bad faith. You can imagine lots of other reasons that Meta might have sent this letter. You can imagine they want to curry favor with Elon. You can imagine that they felt like it would help them compete with us. So evidently there is a lot of fighting. It feels like a lot of, you know, palace intrigue that's going on right now in regards to them just essentially trying to get this done, convert to a for profit, maybe make some money, maybe makes no money. There's a lot that's, you know, there's a lot kind of going on in this. I want to read you the exact letter that that Meta sent because I think that it's, it's quite interesting. They said. Dear General Bonita, as Cal. As a. As a California company that builds generative AI technology, Meta Platforms is deeply concerned about OpenAI's attempt to shed the non profit status under which it was founded in order to establish a for profit entity. We urge you to review this proposed transaction, including the nature and timing of any Future assets for OpenAI's non profit entity to other entities. Failing to hold OpenAI accountable for its choices to form as a nonprofit could lead to a proliferation of similar startup ventures that are notionally charitable until they are potentially profitable. The people of California have a direct and urgent interest in stopping this behavior. All for profit activities of OpenAI and its related entities should be paused to protect investors and consumers alike. In 2015, OpenAI filed its original certification of incorporation with the State of Delaware, which reads, this corporation shall be a nonprofit corporate corporation organized exclusively for charitable and or educational purposes. So you can, I don't know, there's all sorts of arguments that are being made here. You can before or against any of this stuff, but at the end of the day, OpenAI filed and said they were going to exclusively be for charitable and educational people got hundreds of millions of dollars of tax write offs under that pretense. And changing it now does seem like it's. It shouldn't be possible is what it actually seems like. That being said, this is going to the courts Elon Musk is suing. It's going to be interesting to see where all of this goes, and I'll keep you up to date on all of it. So if you enjoyed the podcast today, if you wouldn't mind leaving me a review wherever you get your podcast. Liking this on YouTube? There's a link in the description to the YouTube channel if you're.