First, OpenAI may be successful in turning a large profit based on continued marginal improvements in AI systems, so that their company continues getting much more valuable, far faster than 5% annual growth, meaning that the endowment would grow in value, that is, on net accumulating rather than distributing wealth. In this case, OpenAIâs equity will appreciate greatly; it would be irresponsible for the nonprofit not to try to spend large parts of that increased value.
In this scenario, wouldnât it be much better if the non-profit didnât spend its money now? By holding onto the money now, itâd have much more to give later. Put another way: imagine if the grantees receiving the money were asked âwould you prefer $100 today or $10,000 in 6 years?â many would take the latter.
One frame that might make this argument more compelling is that if OAI ends up building AGI and ends up having astronomical value, then the foundation is sitting on humanityâs endowment. Spending it down now before itâs realized its value could be very costly.
No, it would not. Per the frame that makes the argument more compelling, as I said; âSecondly, they may be even more successful in building significantly more powerful AI, transforming the world. Obviously, the nonprofit would become far wealthier, but given OpenAIâs mandate, it also becomes irrelevant.â
But within the first option, if they are actually more than doubling their value yearly (as implied by 100x in 6 years, which matches their current revenue growth continuing at the current rate,) if they give away $20 billion per year, starting at their current valuation of $150 billion, they end up giving away only a small fraction of their eventual endowmentâabout 13%. And in that case, given that itâs hard to spend 13% of $150b effectively, itâs going to be far harder to spend any large percentage of their $15 trillion endowment in later years!
In this scenario, wouldnât it be much better if the non-profit didnât spend its money now? By holding onto the money now, itâd have much more to give later. Put another way: imagine if the grantees receiving the money were asked âwould you prefer $100 today or $10,000 in 6 years?â many would take the latter.
One frame that might make this argument more compelling is that if OAI ends up building AGI and ends up having astronomical value, then the foundation is sitting on humanityâs endowment. Spending it down now before itâs realized its value could be very costly.
No, it would not. Per the frame that makes the argument more compelling, as I said; âSecondly, they may be even more successful in building significantly more powerful AI, transforming the world. Obviously, the nonprofit would become far wealthier, but given OpenAIâs mandate, it also becomes irrelevant.â
But within the first option, if they are actually more than doubling their value yearly (as implied by 100x in 6 years, which matches their current revenue growth continuing at the current rate,) if they give away $20 billion per year, starting at their current valuation of $150 billion, they end up giving away only a small fraction of their eventual endowmentâabout 13%. And in that case, given that itâs hard to spend 13% of $150b effectively, itâs going to be far harder to spend any large percentage of their $15 trillion endowment in later years!