OpenAI, a leading artificial intelligence research organization, has recently faced criticism and controversy over its governance, vision, and ethics, as it struggles to balance its original mission of creating and sharing beneficial AI for humanity with its commercial and competitive interests.
OpenAI was founded in 2015 by a group of prominent tech entrepreneurs and investors, such as Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Reid Hoffman, who pledged to donate $1 billion to support the nonprofit’s goal of creating and ensuring the safe and responsible use of artificial general intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical form of AI that can perform any intellectual task that humans can.
However, in 2019, OpenAI announced that it would create a for-profit entity, OpenAI LP, to raise more funds and attract more talent, while retaining its nonprofit parent, OpenAI Inc, to oversee its alignment with its social mission. The move raised questions and concerns about the transparency, accountability, and independence of the organization, as well as its potential conflicts of interest and incentives.
Since then, OpenAI has been involved in several controversies, such as the delayed and restricted release of its powerful text-generating system, GPT-2, in 2019, citing the risks of malicious use and misuse; the secretive and exclusive licensing of its latest and largest version, GPT-3, to Microsoft in 2020, sparking accusations of betraying its open and accessible principles; and the departure and dismissal of some of its prominent researchers and leaders, such as Ilya Sutskever, Dario Amodei, and Sam Altman, amid disagreements and disputes over the direction and culture of the organization.
OpenAI’s dilemmas reflect the tensions and trade-offs that many Asian companies face, as they seek to pursue both social and financial objectives, and to balance the interests and expectations of various stakeholders, such as founders, investors, employees, customers, and regulators.
Keep Reading
According to a report by the Asian Corporate Governance Association, Asian companies tend to have more concentrated and complex ownership structures, such as family or state control, cross-shareholdings, or dual-class shares, which can affect their governance quality and performance.
The report also found that Asian companies tend to have weaker board independence and diversity, as they often appoint insiders, relatives, or affiliates as directors, rather than independent and qualified outsiders. Moreover, Asian companies tend to have less disclosure and engagement with shareholders and the public, as they are often influenced by cultural norms, legal constraints, or political pressures.
The report suggested that Asian companies should adopt more effective and ethical governance practices, such as enhancing board independence and diversity, improving disclosure and transparency, and strengthening stakeholder engagement and accountability.
The report also highlighted the potential benefits of good governance, such as enhancing reputation and trust, attracting and retaining talent and capital, and fostering innovation and sustainability.
