Live data from Hacker News

Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

openai.com

151–160 of 339 posts

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#151
post #50
post #12

“Our plan is to transform our existing for-profit into a Delaware Public Benefit Corporation (PBC) with ordinary shares of stock…The non-profit’s significant interest in the existing for-profit would take the form of shares in the PBC at a fair valuation determined by independent financial advisors.” The details here matter and is bs. What should take place is this, OpenAI creates a new for profit entity (PBC, or wha…

> Elon Musk strong claim to get a significant portion of the equity owned by the non-profit, given his sizable investment when a contemporaneous valuation of the company would have been small Sorry, what's the path to this? Musk's 'investment' was in the form of a donation, which means he legally has no more claim to the value of the nonprofit than anyone else.

[deleted]

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#152
post #137
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think often company spin like this is more targeted towards internal employees than the outside world. Employees on the inside are always going to have a decent percentage of “true believers” who have cognitive dissonance if they don’t believe they’re making the world better. And so companies need to provide a narrative to keep that type of employee happy.

It's quite frankly more than that. They think we are all idiots into believing that so-called "AGI" is going to make the world a better place, whilst investors, employees are laughing all the way to the bank with every new fundraising round. First being a non-profit, then taking Microsoft's money, then ditching non-profit status to a for-profit organization and now changing definitions of "Open" and "AGI" to raise mo…

I’m not sure why this was down-modded, it is quite accurate.

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#153
post #67
post #35

The whole thing is a paper thin farce. Strong principled stance until the valuations got big (helped in no small measure by the principled stance)…and then backtracked it when everyone saw the riches there for the taking with a little let’s call it reframing

Everyone has a price, is this meant to be shocking? I mean, I’m disappointed… but I’d have been far more surprised if they’d stood fast with the philanthropic mission once world-changing money was on the table.

> Everyone has a price, is this meant to be shocking?

Left a very-well paying job over conscience reasons. TC was ~3x higher than I could get elsewhere without immigrating, probably higher than anywhere relative to CoL. I wasn't even doing defense stuff, crypto scams or anything clearly questionable like that, just clients were mostly in fossil-fuel adjacent sectors. Come from a lower-class background and haven't built up sizable assets at all, will likely need to work until retirement age.

AMA.

If anyone similar reads this, would love to get in touch as I'm sure we'll have a lot in common. In case someone here knows me, hi!

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#154

I understand the criticisms in this thread and, based on tech leaders actions in the past, am inclined to agree with them. If only to not feel naive. However, given the extremely competitive environment for AI, if Sam Altman and OpenAI were altruistic and wanted to create a company that benefited everyone, what options do they have moving forward? Do people here think that they can remain competitive with their curre…

There‘s a whole movement called Purpose Companies that tries to answer it. Some companies like Patagonia, Bosch, Ableton, and most Danish companies like Maersk follow it. It’s unclear what other formats OpenAI has explored, and if so, what reasons they found not to pursue them.

At the end of the day, I do agree though that it’s insanely hard to innovate both on the product and a company structure. It’s quite sad that we don’t see OpenAI innovate in the org area anymore, but understandable from my POV.

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#155
post #106
post #53

I don't understand why they are spending so much time and effort trying to put a positive spin on this whole for-profit thing. No one is buying it. We all know what's going on. Just say "we want to make lots of money" and move on with your lives.

I think often company spin like this is more targeted towards internal employees than the outside world. Employees on the inside are always going to have a decent percentage of “true believers” who have cognitive dissonance if they don’t believe they’re making the world better. And so companies need to provide a narrative to keep that type of employee happy.

Come one, people are not that stupid.

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#156
post #53

I don't understand why they are spending so much time and effort trying to put a positive spin on this whole for-profit thing. No one is buying it. We all know what's going on. Just say "we want to make lots of money" and move on with your lives.

And take the fraudulent "open" out of their name. That douchebaggery sets a precedent that will no doubt run rampant.

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#157
post #53

I don't understand why they are spending so much time and effort trying to put a positive spin on this whole for-profit thing. No one is buying it. We all know what's going on. Just say "we want to make lots of money" and move on with your lives.

exactly, this would be even more relatable to most of people, we are not living in Star Track where you don't have to make money to survive.

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#158
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think often company spin like this is more targeted towards internal employees than the outside world. Employees on the inside are always going to have a decent percentage of “true believers” who have cognitive dissonance if they don’t believe they’re making the world better. And so companies need to provide a narrative to keep that type of employee happy.

This. Stuff like mission statements and that kind of crap is for these type of employees who need to delude themselves that they're not just part of a profit making exercise or manufacturing weapons to suppress minorities / kill brown people. Every company has one.

Really? I mean, I don't know a single person in real life who believes all this corporate bs. We know there must be a mission because this is the current business culture taught during MBA courses and everybody accepted it as a matter of course but I'm not even sure the CEOs themselves believe there is even one employee who is fascinated by its mission - say, a FedEx driver who admires the slogan "FedEx Corporation will produce superior financial returns for its shareowners by providing high value-added logistics, transportation and related business services".

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#159
post #146
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I kind of thought that was the point of the current structure. Yes, it is but if we only stopped the analysis right there , we could take pleasure in the fact that Sam Altman checkmated himself in his own blog post. "Dude, the non-profit is _supposed_ to control the profit company because that's how you formed the companies in the first place! Duh!!!" To go beyond that analysis, we have to at least entertain (not "a…

> But to outsiders, it looks like a scam or bait-and-switch. It doesn't look like one - it is one. > We’re excited to welcome the following new donors to OpenAI: Jed McCaleb (opens in a new window), Gabe Newell (opens in a new window), Michael Seibel (opens in a new window), Jaan Tallinn (opens in a new window), and Ashton Eaton (opens in a new window) and Brianne Theisen-Eaton (opens in a new window). Reid Hoffman (…

>It doesn't look like one - it is one. > We’re excited to welcome the following new donors to OpenAI: ...

The story is that OpenAI worked out some equity conversion of the for-profit co for the donors to the non-profit. Elon Musk was the notable holdout. Elon was offered some unknown percentage for his ~$40 million donation but he refused.

Seems like the donors are ok with OpenAI pivot to for-profit ... except for Elon. So no bait-n-switch as seen from "insiders" perspective.

If you have information that contradicts that, please add to the thread.

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#160
Deepseek completely changed the game. Cheap to run + cheap to train frontier LLMs are now in the menu for LOTs of organizations. Few would want to pay AI as a Service to Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, or anybody, if they can just pay few millions to run limited but powerful inhouse frontier LLMs (Claude level LLMs).

At some point, the now fully packed and filtered data required to train a Claude-level AI will be one torrent away from anybody, in a couple of months you could probably can pay someone else to filter the data and make sure it has the right content enabling you to get well the train for a claude-level inhouse LLM.

It seems the premise of requiring incredible expensive and time demanding (construction), GPU especialized datacenters is fading away, and you could actually get to the Claude-level maybe using fairly cheap and outdated hardware. Quite easier to deploy than cutting edge newer-bigger-faster GPUs datacenters.

If the near future advances hold even more cost-optimization techniques, many organizations could just shrugg about "AGI" level - costly, very limited - public offered AI services, and just begin to deploy very powerful -and very affordable for organizations of certain size- non-AGI inhouse frontier LLMs.

So OpenAI + MS and their investments could be already on their way out of the AI business by now.

If things go that way - cheaper, "easy" to deploy frontier LLMs - maybe the only game in town for OpenAI could be just to use actual AGI (if they can build it, make it to that level of AI), and just topple competitors in other markets, mainly replacing humans at scale to capture reveneau from the current jobs of white collar workers, medics from various specialties, lawyers, accountants, whatever human work they can replace at scale with AGI, for a lower cost for hour worked than it could be payed to a human worker.

Because, going to "price war" with the inhouse AIs would probably mean to actually ease their path to better inhouse AIs eventually (even if just by making AI as a service to produce better data with they could use to train better inhouse claude-level frontier LLMs).

It is not like replacing onpremise datacenters with public cloud, because by using public cloud you can't learn how to make way cheaper onpremise datacenters, but with AGI AI level services you probably could find a way to make your own AGI AI (achieving anything close to that - claude-level AIs or better- would lead your organization to lower the costs of using the AGI AI level external services)

Post reply on HN