Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 678 posts

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#121

Post by __loam »

slibhb wrote: post #98
lsy wrote: post #58

I guess it's not news but it is pretty wild to see the level of millenarianism espoused by all of these guys. The board of OpenAI is supposedly going to "determine the fate of the world", robotics to be "completely solved" by 2020, the goal of OpenAI is to "avoid an AGI dictatorship". Is nobody in these very rich guys' spheres pushing back on their thought process? So far we are multiple years in with much investment…

> So far we are multiple years in with much investment and little return Modern (2024) LLMs are "little return"? Seriously? For me, they've mostly replaced Google. I have no idea how well the scaling will contiue and I'm generally unimpressed with AI-doomer narratives, but this technology is real.

They're not talking about your anecdotes, they're talking about the capex and returns. Which are overwhelmingly negative.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#122

Post by the_duke »

computerex wrote: post #100
catigula wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That same space company said that they'd do point to point commercial travel using rockets. As for significantly outperforming: Ask NASA, price per launch has gone UP not DOWN. What's the point of reusability if it doesn't affect the bottom line in a positive way?

The price for austronaut launches to the ISS.

I'd wager mainly because there is no competition, and there is no motivation for SpaceX to charge less.

The cost for regular launches has gone down a lot. But, to be fair, it has not gone down nearly as far as it could. SpaceX still has big margins there. I assume because again there is too little competition, and because going from 60 to 25 Million doesn't increase the potential market by all that much, so no huge motivation to drop prices.

Starship might allow them to go so much lower that entirely new markets can emerge, but I'm skeptical.

It's a bit of a different story for rideshare missions, those do make it way, way cheaper to launch small satelites.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#123

Post by bobthebuilders »

talldayo wrote: post #77
bobthebuilders wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rules of traditional warfare will still exist, they will just be fought by advanced hyper intelligent AIs instead of humans. Hunter Miller humanoids like Optimus and drones like Anduril will replace humans in war. War will be the same, but the rich are preparing to unleash a "new arsenal of democracy" against us in an AI takeover. We must be prepared.

> Hunter Miller humanoids like Optimus and drones like Anduril will replace humans in war. You do not understand how war is fought if you sincerely believe this. Battles aren't won with price tags and marketing videos, they're won with strategic planning and tactical effect. The reason why the US is such a powerful military is not because we field so much materiel, but because each materiel is so effective. Many stan…

I am not talking about drones like DJI quadcopters with grenades duct taped to them or even large fixed wing aircraft, I am talking about small personal humanoid drones.

Civilization is going through a birth rate collapse. The labor shortage will become more endemic in the coming years, first in lower skill and wage jobs, and then everywhere else.

Humanoid robots change the economics of war. No longer does the military or the police need humans. Morale will no longer be an issue. The infantry will become materiel.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#124

Post by mhh__ »

adabyron wrote: post #85
talldayo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that owning Twitter was worth half a Mars colony to him should give you an idea of how seriously he's taking this whole thing. It's up there next to "Full Self Driving" and "$25,000 EV" in the Big Jar of Promises Used To Raise Capital and Nothing Else.

He bought Twitter for $40B. His Tesla stock was 0% ytd until the election. Post election it is up roughly 70% ytd & has paid for Twitter & the Mars colony multiple times. Hard to say if that happens without him owning Twitter.

Honestly not convinced it was about that. I'm sure he likes the stock going up but I think he is somewhat earnest about why he bought twitter, or at least what he wants to do with it when he got stuck with it.

As per usual, he bet the house and won. The vibes are shifting, Trump won, etc

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#125

Post by catigula »

lesuorac wrote: post #108
catigula wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA contracted two companies to perform space launches, Boeing and SpaceX. Due to massively inflating costs and a recent catastrophic failure, Boeing has a very uncertain future in the program. I hope this helps!

I mean once Boeing is out of the picture SpaceX is just going to raise its rates. Tesla sells EVs much cheaper in China than the US due to actual competition.

That's Boeing's problem, not SpaceX's. Boeing used to be a great American company.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#126

Post by arandomusername »

the_duke wrote: post #122
computerex wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That same space company said that they'd do point to point commercial travel using rockets. As for significantly outperforming: Ask NASA, price per launch has gone UP not DOWN. What's the point of reusability if it doesn't affect the bottom line in a positive way?

The price for austronaut launches to the ISS. I'd wager mainly because there is no competition, and there is no motivation for SpaceX to charge less. The cost for regular launches has gone down a lot. But, to be fair, it has not gone down nearly as far as it could. SpaceX still has big margins there. I assume because again there is too little competition, and because going from 60 to 25 Million doesn't increase the p…

> SpaceX still has big margins there

Probably to fuel the R&D cost

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#127

Post by Calavar »

hanspeter wrote: post #120
pinewurst wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody seems to remember how the Segway was going to change our world, backed by many of the VC power figures at the time + Steve Jobs.

I think we all remember, and if we forget, we're reminded every time we see them at airports or doing city tours.

I don't think I've seen a Segway in close to ten years. Also I suspect most people under 25 have never even heard of Segway.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#128

Post by ben_w »

lsy wrote: post #58

I guess it's not news but it is pretty wild to see the level of millenarianism espoused by all of these guys. The board of OpenAI is supposedly going to "determine the fate of the world", robotics to be "completely solved" by 2020, the goal of OpenAI is to "avoid an AGI dictatorship". Is nobody in these very rich guys' spheres pushing back on their thought process? So far we are multiple years in with much investment…

> Is nobody in these very rich guys' spheres pushing back on their thought process?

Yes, frequently and loudly.

When Altman was collecting the award at Cambridge the other year, protesters dropped in on the after-award public talk/Q&A session, and he actively empathised with the protestors.

> So far we are multiple years in with much investment and little return, and no obvious large-scale product-market fit, much less a superintelligence.

I just got back from an Indian restaurant in the middle of Berlin, and the table next to me I overheard a daughter talking to her mother about ChatGPT and KI (Künstliche Intelligenz, the German for AI).

The product market fit is fantastic. This isn't the first time I've heard random strangers discussing it in public.

What's not obvious is how to monetise it. Old meme parroted around was "has no moat", which IMO is like saying Microsoft has no moat for spreadsheets: sure, anyone can make the core tech, and sure we don't know who is Microsoft vs StarOffice vs ClarisWorks vs Google Docs, but there's more than zero moat. From what I've seen, if OpenAI didn't develop new products, they'd be making enough to be profitable, but it's a Red Queen race to remain worth paying for.

As for "much less a superintelligence": even the current models meet every definition of "very smart" I had while growing up, despite their errors. As an adult, I'd still call them book-smart if not abstractly smart. Students or recent graduates, but not wise enough to know their limits and be cautious.

For current standards of what intelligence means, we'd better hope we don't get ASI in the next decade or two, because if and when that happens then "humans need not apply" — and by extension, foundational assumptions of economics may just stop holding true.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#129

Post by stolenmerch »

pinewurst wrote: post #91
lsy wrote: post #58

I guess it's not news but it is pretty wild to see the level of millenarianism espoused by all of these guys. The board of OpenAI is supposedly going to "determine the fate of the world", robotics to be "completely solved" by 2020, the goal of OpenAI is to "avoid an AGI dictatorship". Is nobody in these very rich guys' spheres pushing back on their thought process? So far we are multiple years in with much investment…

Nobody seems to remember how the Segway was going to change our world, backed by many of the VC power figures at the time + Steve Jobs.

I remember serious discussions about how we'd probably need to repave all of our sidewalks in the US to accommodate the Segway

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#130

Post by skissane »

computerex wrote: post #100
catigula wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That same space company said that they'd do point to point commercial travel using rockets. As for significantly outperforming: Ask NASA, price per launch has gone UP not DOWN. What's the point of reusability if it doesn't affect the bottom line in a positive way?

> That same space company said that they'd do point to point commercial travel using rockets.

I think they still hope to achieve that in the future. It is just there are a lot of more critical milestones they need to hit first before they try to tackle that.

Post reply on HN