>Sure, I just don't see why that should be disqualifying
The same reason every conflict of interest is a problem. You're not advocating for what's best for the side you are supposed to be representing because you are also representing a self interest.
This is not even close to paranoid. Conflicts of interest are an important issue for nonprofits because it can cause them to lose tax exempt status, and the IRS makes a whole todo about it, and therefore so do competent boards. Trying to brush this under the rug because of politics is disgusting and would not be tolerated at ethical and competent organizations.
> I think some people are missing the conflict of interest because the author blurs the lines between his personal opinion and his business.
No, what's going on is that you don't understand what "conflict of interest" refers to.
Different people having different interests, as when the apple company says you should buy apples even though you prefer oranges, is just a regular conflict. A conflict of interest is when one person has two different interests. The apple company isn't experiencing a conflict in your example.
> An undisclosed conflict of interest is always a problem.
Can you help me understand why this is? If a known conflict of interest may or may not be a problem for the downside party why does that change if the conflict is unknown?
I can see how it can become a problem, and how the downside party is at a disadvantage but I’m not understanding why this is always a problem.
> I don’t understand why that’s not a conflict of interest?
It's not the conflict of interest it would be if it was the board of a for profit corporation that was basically identical to the existing for-profit LLC but without the lyaers above it ending with the nonprofit that the board actually runs, because OpenAI is not a normal company, and making profit is not its purpose, so the CEO of a company that happens to have a product in the same space as the LLC is not in a fundamental conflict of interest (there may be some specific decisions it would make sense for him to recuse from for conflict reasons, but there is a difference between "may have a conflict regarding certain decisions" and "has a fundamental conflict incompatible with sitting on the board".)
Its not a conflict for a nonprofit that raises money with craft faires to have someone who runs a for-profit periodic craft faire in the same market on its board. It is a conflict for a for profit corporation whose business is running such a craft faire to do so, though.
I think it's important to be aware of conflicts of interest like this, but that's not what's being discussed, and the solutions offered aren't attacking this type of problem.
Why is disclosure of potential conflict of interest made out to be such a high bar? And why do you put arguments forth that did not exist in what you replied to?
> Does it make any sense to say he can't comment on the work of an organisation he runs because he runs it?
Is a straw man argument, because what was said was that the conflict of interest should have been disclosed. And, not that he cannot make a comment.
> The OP said was distasteful when they turn into "political orgs with a political agenda".
There is a difference between political in the sense that all legislation is political, and politics as an "us vs. them" tribal conflict where anything which is bad for your opponents is good for you and vice versa. Having anyone, but public interest orgs especially, participate in the second kind of politics is distasteful.
"These are heuristics, not hard-and-fast rules. They definitely shouldn’t replace objective evaluations of arguments you hear, regardless of who they might come from!"
Recognizing conflicts of interest is an important skill. It is very telling if a speaker/advocate does not reveal them at the outset.
The same reason every conflict of interest is a problem. You're not advocating for what's best for the side you are supposed to be representing because you are also representing a self interest.
reply