🚨 Breaking: A group of 100+ Nobel laureates, professors, whistleblowers, public figures, artists, and nonprofit organizations just released a letter asking OpenAI to tell the truth about its restructuring. Here’s what they had to say: 🧵

Today, The Midas Project joined a group of 15 organizations led by the Consumer Federation of America, calling on state and federal regulators to investigate and enforce laws against xAI for their promotion, creation, and facilitation of sharing non-consensual intimate imagery.

RT @ForHumanityPod: NEW: For Humanity EP68. "Forcing Sunlight Into OpenAI". I talk with Tyler Johnston of the @TheMidasProj about the open….

Since launching less than 48 hours ago, over 2,500 new signatories have joined our letter‼️. Notable newcomers include journalist Matthew Yglesias and Turning award winner Yoshua Bengio, the most cited computer scientist of all time. Our many signatories probably don't agree on.

RT @ESYudkowsky: Can we please get some journalist and elected-leader attention on this? OpenAI is trying to steal several hundred billion….

RT @Tech_Oversight: Former OpenAI employees, whistleblowers, and 1000+ others including us, signed on because the company’s secrecy — and r….

RT @robertwiblin: LOL even Stephen Fry is now signing open letters about OpenAI's 'restructure'. Clever to merely insist they answer these….

We look forward to hearing OpenAI’s response. ✉️ To read the letter, and to add your name, visit

CEO Sam Altman once asked for this sort of accountability — saying that OpenAI never wants to make decisions to benefit shareholders, but only wants to be accountable to humanity as a whole. This letter is offering such accountability.

What is it that the letter’s signatories, spanning creatives, professors, nonprofits, and whistleblowers, have in common? . We are all part of humanity, and thus beneficiaries of OpenAI’s mission. Everyone has a stake in this restructuring and deserves to know the details.

7. Finally, will the public ever get to see the details of our current entitlements and safeguards as they are legally instantiated in OpenAI documents, or will they continue to be quietly changed without our knowledge (as happened to the profit caps in 2023)?

6. OpenAI’s charter also includes a promise that, since a race to AGI could pose severe risks, if another company is close to developing the technology, they will stop racing and start assisting to reduce the market pressures and encourage safety. Is this still true?

5. OpenAI once boasted about its commitment to ensure AGI technology, when developed, is controlled by the nonprofit instead of investors. However, recent reporting suggests they are considering scrapping this promise, or replacing it with “ASI,” a much higher benchmark.

4. OpenAI’s leadership has said its profit caps are critical because the wealth they will generate is “for sure not okay” for one group of investors to have, and that if they succeed, “all but a fraction” will be returned to the world. Is that still true?

3. So far, the nonprofit board making this decision has been composed of AI investors, entrepreneurs, and in one case, OpenAI’s newly-appointed CEO of Applications. Some reporting suggests this board will lead the for-profit they are creating. So will they receive equity?

2. Next, the letter asks whether the nonprofit will continue to have the same control after the restructuring that it has today. So far, OpenAI has vaguely indicated the nonprofit will retain control while privately suggesting that it will lose many of its powers.

What are those questions? Let's get into it. 1. The first question, and possibly the most important, is whether the mission will still take priority over profits. By default, public benefit corporations are merely required to balance these concerns.

This new letter asks them seven simple questions about the restructuring that, if they answer them honestly, will help the public truly understand what is at stake in this restructuring.

Worst of all, they are acting like they’ve reversed course on their plans and that their new structure will let them prioritize purpose over profit, even though the exact opposite is true.

OpenAI hasn’t been straightforward with you about this restructuring. They’ve described removing profit caps as a mere "simplification" of the company's capital structure. They've written off the potential disempowerment of the nonprofit as a continuation of the status quo.

For context: OpenAI was famously founded as a nonprofit organization, believing that AGI technology was too valuable, and too dangerous, for the private market. However, investor pressure has changed things.