OpenAI's Near-Merger with Anthropic: A Data Analyst's Take
The revelation that OpenAI considered merging with Anthropic in the wake of Sam Altman's brief ouster is fascinating, but let's not get lost in the drama. The real story here is about power, valuation, and the uneasy dance between "non-profit" ideals and for-profit realities in the AI space. Court documents revealed Ilya Sutskever's deposition detailed the merger talks, a proposal where Anthropic would essentially take over OpenAI's leadership. Sutskever himself wasn't thrilled, and the deal ultimately fizzled. OpenAI debated merging with one of its biggest rivals after firing Sam Altman, court docs reveal.
The "Non-Profit" Shell Game
Musk's lawsuit alleges Altman betrayed OpenAI's founding mission as a nonprofit. But let's be clear: OpenAI "restructured" into a for-profit public benefit corporation last month. This isn't some subtle shift; it's a fundamental change in how the company operates and who it answers to. The original non-profit structure was, in my opinion, always a bit of a fig leaf (a rather large one, granted) obscuring the commercial ambitions underneath. Now, with the benefit corporation setup, those ambitions are front and center. How much of the original mission is still there? That's the question.
The potential merger with Anthropic throws this into even sharper relief. We're talking about two of the biggest AI players, both initially framed as pursuing responsible AI development, contemplating a union driven by… what exactly? Sutskever said "practical obstacles" killed the deal, but what were they? Were these obstacles technical, financial, or something else entirely? Details remain scarce, but it's safe to assume valuation played a significant role. These companies aren't trading Pokemon cards; we're talking about billions of dollars and control of cutting-edge technology.
Power Dynamics and the Illusion of Choice
Sutskever's deposition highlights the power dynamics at play. He was "very unhappy" about the merger idea, but seemingly stood alone on the board. Helen Toner was the "most supportive," while others were at least not "unsupportive." This suggests a board heavily leaning towards the deal, regardless of Sutskever's reservations. And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling. Sutskever, as chief scientist, presumably held considerable sway within OpenAI. The fact that his dissent was so easily dismissed speaks volumes about the forces driving the company.
The squabble between Musk and Altman on X (formerly Twitter) is just noise. Musk accusing Altman of stealing a non-profit, Altman retorting he turned something Musk "left for dead" into the "largest non-profit ever"—it's a playground spat between billionaires. The substance is OpenAI's shift in structure and direction. The fight over a cancelled Tesla Roadster order? Irrelevant. The core issue is control, and who benefits from the rapid development of AI.
The lawsuit alleges OpenAI and Microsoft violated antitrust laws by preventing investors from funding competing AI firms, such as Musk's xAI. It's a bold claim, and it raises a crucial point: Is there genuine competition in the AI space, or is it increasingly dominated by a handful of mega-corporations? This isn't just about OpenAI and Anthropic; it's about the future of AI development itself.
So, What's the Real Story?
The near-merger of OpenAI and Anthropic wasn't some idealistic endeavor; it was a power play, plain and simple. The "non-profit" origin story is increasingly irrelevant, and the battle for AI dominance is heating up. The numbers don't lie: billions of dollars are at stake, and the future of AI is being shaped by a select few.
