421–430 of 1001 posts
There is a lot in here but turning a non-profit into a for-profit definitely should be challenged. Otherwise why wouldn't everyone start as a non-profit, develop your IP, and then switch to 'for-profit' mode once you got something that works? You don't pay income taxes and your investors get write offs.
Yes, that's the new capitalism. Privatizing profits while socializing risks.
There is a lot in here but turning a non-profit into a for-profit definitely should be challenged. Otherwise why wouldn't everyone start as a non-profit, develop your IP, and then switch to 'for-profit' mode once you got something that works? You don't pay income taxes and your investors get write offs.
Unprofitable businesses of every sort don't pay income taxes. Startups like OpenAI don't pay income taxes because they don't have income. And investors don't get a writeoff merely for investing in a nonprofit; it's not like a donation to a nonprofit (which would be deductable).
A NY Times article says "Though Mr. Musk has repeatedly criticized OpenAI for becoming a for-profit company, he hatched a plan in 2017 to wrest control of the A.I. lab from Mr. Altman and its other founders and transform into a commercial operation that would work alongside his other companies, including the electric carmaker Tesla, and make use of their increasingly powerful supercomputers, people familiar with his…
Could he be the one behind the recent coup at OpenAI, as well?
The real story behind that is... complicated. First, Sam Altman allegedly does stuff that looks to be setting up a coup against the board, so the board fires Sam, but they don't provide proper context[0] and confuse everyone. So Sam gets Microsoft and a bunch of OpenAI employees to revolt and pressure the board to bring him back. He then fires the board and instates a new one, basically the original coup plan but now very much open and in the public eye.
[0] To be clear, most corporate communications try to say as little as possible about internal office politics. That can easily lead into defamation lawsuits.
Many would argue, reasonably so, that OpenAI is now a de facto subsidiary of the largest company in the world by market cap, Microsoft (Apple is second and Saudi Arabian Oil is third).
It would be the same as me creating my own market, issuing 10,000,000,000 shares, and then convincing 1000 people to buy a share at $100 and then claiming my company is worth $1T.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that AGI, instead of benefitting the whole world, in which Musk is a part of, will end up only benefitting Microsoft, which he isn't a part of?
This is no AGI. An AGI is supposed to be the cognitive equivalent of a human, right? The "AI" being pushed out to people these days can't even count.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The replies that say "well the profits go to the non-profit, all's good" miss the reality of these high profit nonprofits: the profits invariably end up in the pockets of management. Most of those are essentially scams, but it doesn't mean that OpenAI isn't just a more subtle scam. The hype and the credulity of the general public play right into this scam. People will more or less believe anything Sam the Money Gushi…
"Why is the NFL a non-profit: https://www.publicsource.org/why-is-the-nfl-a-nonprofit/ The total revenue of the NFL has been steadily increasing over the years, with a significant drop in 2020 due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic12. Here are some figures: 2001: $4 billion 2010: $8.35 billion 2019: $15 billion 2020: $12.2 billion 2021: $17.19 billion 2022: $18 billion
Now that Google, Meta, Mistral, etc, all have great open source models, it seems rather untenable for OpenAI to 1. keep "open" in the name 2. stay closed source 3. pretend to be a non-profit at least one of those things must go, right?
There is a lot in here but turning a non-profit into a for-profit definitely should be challenged. Otherwise why wouldn't everyone start as a non-profit, develop your IP, and then switch to 'for-profit' mode once you got something that works? You don't pay income taxes and your investors get write offs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The public has no idea what non-profits are and a lot of things that people call 'profit seeking ventures' (ie. selling products) are done by many non-profits.
Most frequently "The CEO gets paid $X! Doesn't sound like a non-profit to me!" I hear this all the time. As if the people working there shouldn't be paid.
There is a lot in here but turning a non-profit into a for-profit definitely should be challenged. Otherwise why wouldn't everyone start as a non-profit, develop your IP, and then switch to 'for-profit' mode once you got something that works? You don't pay income taxes and your investors get write offs.