Live data from Hacker News

Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

openai.com

371–380 of 678 posts

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#371
post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's growth focus and there's doing some of the largest fundraising rounds in the history of silicon valley during a time when debt is the most expensive it's been in decades and still barely keeping the lights on because your service is so unprofitable.

Interest rates are still well below their historical average right now. And yes, venture capital investing involves high risk, of which all participants are fully aware, and intentionally looking for. We're talking They absolutely might fail. But the level of pessimism here is just plain funny. How much money are you willing to bet against them ever getting profitable?

I think there's a big difference between companies like Google and Amazon that were operated unprofitably for years but did have the option to pivot in to profitability for a lot of that time. I would also consider Uber more of an outlier than the rule in terms of blitzscaling. Maybe OpenAI will be kept alive on life support for a while because there is so much in the industry riding on AI being the next big thing, but their problems are myriad and include terrible unit economics and a complete lack of moat in an environment full of bigger organizations that can pour nigh unlimited money into trying to outcompete them. Maybe it makes me a pessimist to point out basic business fundamentals in the face of unquestioning optimism.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#372
post #76

People change their minds all the time. What someone wanted in 2017 could be the same or different in 2024?

Sure, but the nuance is Elon only wants what benefits him most at the time. There was no philosophical change, other than now he’s competing. He's allowed these opinions, we’re allowed to ignore them and lawyers are allowed to use this against him.

That is true of most people and is the most common reason people change their minds.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#373
post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does office actually have a moat? I thought the kids liked Google docs nowadays. (No opinion as to which is actually better, the actual thing people should do is write LaTeX in vim. You can even share documents! Just have everybody attach to the same tmux session and take turns).

If you're writing a spreadsheet in LaTeX, I suspect something has gone very wrong somewhere along the line. Spreadsheets are as much a calculation environment as they are a table of figures, and if you're technical enough to be writing docs in LaTeX you should be doing the calculations in a more rigorous environment where you don't copy the formulas between cells.

Excel, the world's most popular functional programming language.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free credit or the tokens? Because that's a very different story.

One year ago I gave openAi $100 to have credits for small hobby projects that use their API. They expired and disappeared and then openAi charged me $100 to reload my lost money. I am sure this is what I agreed to, but I personally thought I was hacked or something because I didnt expect this behavior from them. They lost me as an API user and monthly chatgpt plus user. I hope it was worth it. They want enterprise, b…

[flagged]

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#375
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?

I will take a wild guess and say a qualified no in the sense that nobody who report directly to these people said anything against it and my conspiracy theory is that they were not idiots who didn't have their own misgivings but they prized their own personal gain / "professional growth" by being yes men over doing what they had a professional responsibility.

My favorite example is the Amazon Fire Phone

> Jeff Bezos reportedly "...envisioned a list of whiz-bang features... NFC for contactless payments, hands-free interactions to allow users to navigate the interface through mid-air gestures and a force-sensitive grip that could respond in different ways to various degrees of physical pressure", most of which ultimately did not end up in the final product. He also "obsessively monitored the product", requiring "even the smallest decisions needed to go by him".

Did nobody think that an expensive phone would make sense with a value conscious audience of Amazon.com? If nobody (who directly reports to the CEO) dares question even a relatively minor thing like this, how can we expect them to say anything about major/existential issues in a company such as "Open" AI?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Phone

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#376
post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this trend of using IQ as a primary measuring stick is flawed. Human minds and AI minds have radically different architectures, and therefore have different strengths and weaknesses. IQ is only one component of what allows a typical worker to do their job. Even just comparing humans, the fact that one person with, say, a 120 IQ can do a particular job—say they are an excellent doctor—obviously does not mean t…

> I think this trend of using IQ as a primary measuring stick is flawed. I agree, but it's difficult to fully describe the impact of a tech where $5 gets you the ability to do arithmetic faster than literally every human combined even if we were all working at the speed of the current world record holder , yet simultaneously it took a billion dollar research team 14 years to figure out how to get a robot to reliably…

It's difficult to fully describe, so let's just give up and use a deeply flawed benchmark? Why not try to develop benchmarks that actually work and tell us something useful instead?

The key issue is that there is no result an AI can achieve on a standard IQ test which guarantees that same AI can do any task at a superhuman level, apart from taking IQ tests. Can an LLM that scores 250 replace a human driver? Who knows? Can it replace a senior software engineer? Who knows? Can it replace a manual laborer? Again, who can say? We know a human with a 250 IQ can do all those things, but with an AI we have no idea, because those tasks have many more inputs than IQ.

Rather than IQ, which tells us almost nothing concrete, I think we should focus on what tasks it can actually achieve. What's a Waymo's IQ? Who cares?! I don't care about its IQ. I care about its ability to drive me safely across the city. Similarly, I don't care whether a coding AI can drive a car or write great novels.

Of course it's interesting to measure and speculate about IQ as it relates to AGI, but I think it gives people the very mistaken impression that we are on some kind of linear path where all we need to do is keep pushing up a single all-important number.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#377
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's naive for anyone to think that Elon won't use his influence in government to empower his companies and weaken his competitors.

I think he is less worried about competitors than the government itself. Specifically, unelected bureaucrats with lots of power and few responsibilities.

He will actually use his position in the government to take down his competitors (by, for example, stopping the tax benefit of EV). Elon has grown into the biggest corrupt guy

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I’m convinced we’re going to screw this planet up, the gap between “as bad as we can make Earth” and “as good as we can make Mars” is pretty huge, right? And not in a way that is optimistic for Mars.

True it's probably easier to survive on earth in some luxury bunker than on Mars no matter how much we destroy earth. Alternative theories: billionaire space tourism, it was never really about mars but about asteroid mining, it was never about mars he just wants the government subsidies

Looking at his ventures, I think he is after power and leverage.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#379

Yes ... and? The part that raises eyebrows is how a non-profit suddenly become a for-profit, from a legal standpoint.

He is suing to try to stop them becoming a for-profit. This post is showing that he originally supported the idea.

A useless argument. If Elon does, in fact, have the legal authority to prevent OpenAI being for profit due to his initial investment (and these emails seem to indicate that the other founders think he does), then it doesn't matter if he wanted it then, only if he wants it now when the decision is being made. The fact that this is being presented to the public and not to the court is further evidence of its weakness.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#380
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 l…

> The product market fit is fantastic. This isn't the first time I've heard random strangers discussing it in public. Hardly the evidence of PMF. There is always something new in the zeitgeist, that every one is talking about, some more so than others . 2 years before it was VR, few years before that NFTs and blockchain everything, before that it was self driving cars before that personal voice assistants like Siri a…

Self-driving won't take over by just being available in the new cars people are buying anyway.

It'll take over when people find it cheaper to ride robotaxis than to own a vehicle at all. That's potentially a much quicker transition, requiring significantly fewer new vehicles.

Post reply on HN