Elon Musk Agrees to OpenAI Critic Calling It “The Theft of the Millennium”

When a vocal critic on the 80,000 Hours podcast described OpenAI's transformation into a for-profit entity as "the theft of the millennium," the line grabbed attention for its boldness. But what truly made waves was Elon Musk, one of OpenAI's co-founders, agreeing with the critique.

Musk's endorsement of the criticism has reignited a debate about OpenAI's controversial shift from nonprofit ideals to commercial ambitions. Here's a deeper look at what this means, why it matters, and whether the critique holds up.

What's Behind the "Theft of the Millennium" Claim?

The phrase is rooted in OpenAI's pivot from its nonprofit origins to what critics see as a more profit-oriented enterprise. OpenAI was founded in 2015 with a mission to ensure artificial general intelligence (AGI) would benefit all of humanity. Its nonprofit structure was meant to prioritize safety and public good over shareholder profits.

However, in 2019, OpenAI introduced a "capped-profit" model, which allowed it to raise funds from investors while limiting returns to a predefined cap. More recently, the organization has shifted even further, appearing to function increasingly like a traditional for-profit business. The accusation of "theft" suggests that OpenAI has leveraged its nonprofit roots, public goodwill, and even early donations-such as Musk's own $100 million contribution-to build a valuable, proprietary enterprise.

Critics argue this evolution leaves the nonprofit's board, tasked with safeguarding the original mission, outmatched and unable to ensure OpenAI's current trajectory aligns with its foundational purpose.

Why Is Musk Concerned?

Musk's relationship with OpenAI has always been multifaceted. As a co-founder, he envisioned the organization as a counterbalance to corporate-driven AI development. However, he stepped down from OpenAI's board in 2018, citing potential conflicts of interest with Tesla's AI work. Over time, disagreements about OpenAI's direction and transparency have widened the rift.

Since then, Musk has been openly critical of OpenAI's growing ties to major corporate players like Microsoft, which has invested billions into the company. While the partnership has enabled groundbreaking technologies like ChatGPT, it has also raised concerns about whether OpenAI is now too beholden to corporate interests.

For Musk, this isn't just a business disagreement; it's an existential concern. He has long warned about the dangers of unregulated AGI development. OpenAI's original nonprofit structure was designed to act as a safeguard, ensuring AGI research was aligned with humanity's best interests. Now, with commercialization front and center, skeptics-including Musk-question whether these safeguards are still intact.

The Nonprofit's Perspective

OpenAI's leadership has defended its shift, arguing that the organization's mission remains unchanged. The "capped-profit" model, they claim, is a practical necessity to raise the vast resources required to stay competitive with giants like Google and Meta. Without significant funding, OpenAI wouldn't have been able to deliver the breakthroughs it has achieved.

The company also insists that its nonprofit arm retains control over key decisions, such as when AGI has been achieved and how it will be deployed. But critics argue that such safeguards are vulnerable in the face of growing financial and corporate pressures.

A Broader Concern for AI Governance

Musk's agreement with the critique highlights a deeper issue: how to govern transformative technologies like AI. Should they be controlled by corporations driven by profits? Or should they be managed by organizations that prioritize the collective good, even if that limits their growth?

A Path Forward

Whether the nonprofit board can secure a fair deal in its negotiations remains an open question. Observers have suggested that state attorneys general could intervene to ensure that the nonprofit's interests-and by extension, the public's interests-are adequately protected. If the nonprofit receives appropriate compensation, in cash or equity, it could still uphold its mission.