Flock typifies a batch of "real world/real problem" platforms building things that are raytheon-tier risky with restaurant-grade governance. Literally, the wor

Flock typifies a batch of "real world/real problem" platforms building things that are raytheon-tier risky with restaurant-grade governance. Literally, the word "govern" seems to appear only with reference to others (new deployments) on their website. My jaundiced hope is that they follow the path of openai and anthropic to restructure as a PBC before their listing. That would make their marketing-y public benefit statements legally binding under a standard that has yet to be applied. Nobody cares, but this sort of thing gets me all hot and bothered. Public Benefit Corporations are definitely overrepresented in the portfolios I manage at [Ethical Capital](https://ethicic.com https://ethicic.com). Much of what's out there is transparently sketchy (a for profit college, sugar water, payday lending) but wouldn't it be nice if it came to resemble a legitimate asset class? Today it's more of an aesthetic format and a way to shield directors from liability. But it's possible investor pressure could result in one or more of these companies' boards being held liable for neglecting their public purpose. These statutes have not been adjudicated in Delaware court, which puts double extra secret pressure on the activist's target to reach an out of court settlement. Incidentally: tech workers, if you're looking for a long term way to organize and your company is on the march to IPO, now is the time to make sure that your "don't be evil" sits somewhere it can't be easily revoked. Governance is how systems survive individuals. It matters for ai agents, why not the people who run your company?