Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

Post by int_19h » Fri, Dec 27, 2024, 8:33 PM UTC

whamlastxmas wrote: post #96

ants_everywhere wrote: post #48

> Our current structure does not allow the Board to directly consider the interests of those who would finance the mission Why should it? You can't serve two masters. They claim to serve the master of human-aligned AI. Why would they want to add another goal that's impossible to align with their primary one?

I want to put my opinion somewhere and as a reply to this seems like a good option. I am anti-capitalism and anti-profit and anti-Microsoft, but I can take a step back and recognize the truth to what’s being said here. They give the context that hundreds of billions are being spent on AI right now, and if OpenAI wants to remain competitive, they need significantly more money than they originally anticipated. They’re…

Post by int_19h » Fri, Dec 27, 2024, 8:39 PM UTC

caycep wrote: post #250

at this point, why isn't there a Debian for AI?

Post by Forgeties79 » Fri, Dec 27, 2024, 8:41 PM UTC

ninth_ant wrote: post #120

chis wrote: 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.

I think this underestimates the degree to which the people on these companies legitimately believe what they’re saying. I’ve worked at one of these companies and absolutely would fall into your category of being a true believer at the time. People of all stripes are extremely willing to embrace ideas that justify their own personal benefit. A rich person might be more likely to believe in trickle-down economics becau…

Post by cheald » Fri, Dec 27, 2024, 8:46 PM UTC

Havoc wrote: 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

Post by foobiekr » Fri, Dec 27, 2024, 8:52 PM UTC

Seattle3503 wrote: post #189

jefftk wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We are turning our non profit into a for profit because we want to make money" isn't legal. To make this transition in a way that maximizes how much money they can make while minimizing what they lose to lawsuits they need to explain what they're doing in a positive way.

> "We are turning our non profit into a for profit because we want to make money" isn't legal. Source? The NFL did this because they were already making a lot of money. As I understand it, the tax laws practically required the change.