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

Evolving OpenAI's Structure

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 746 posts

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#161

Post by fs111 »

jwarden wrote: post #148
no_wizard wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook had immense network effects working for it back then. What network effect does OpenAI have? Far as I can tell, moving from OpenAI to Gemini or something else is easy. It’s not sticky at all. There’s no “my friends are primarily using OpenAI so I am too” or anything like that. So again, I ask, what makes it sticky?

Brand counts for a lot

Google is one of the most valuable brands ever. Everyone knows it. It is even used for "searching the web" openai is not that strong of a brand

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#162

Post by drewbeck »

sneak wrote: post #100
drewbeck wrote: post #82

I see OpenAI's original form as the last gasp of a kind of liberal tech; in a world where "doing good" was seen as very important, the non-profit approach made sense and got a lot of people on board. These days the Altmans and the pmarcas of the world are much more comfortable expressing their authoritarian, self-centered world views; the "evolving" structure of Open AI is fully in line with that. They want to be the…

Is it reasonable to assign the descriptor “authoritarian” to anyone who simply does not subscribe to the common orthodoxy of one faction in the american culture war? That is what it seems to me is happening here, though I would love to be wrong. I have not seen anything from sama or pmarca that I would classify as “authoritarian”.

No I don't think it is. I DO think those two people want to be in charge (along with other billionaires) and they want the rest of us to follow along, which is in my book an authoritarian POV. pmarca's recent "VC is the only job that can't be done by AI" is a good example of that; the rest of us are to be managed and controlled by VCs and robots.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#163

Post by esafak »

BeetleB wrote: post #144
esafak wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A European dystopia won't be AI borne, so this is a false dilemma.

What I meant is: Europe can choose to regulate as they do, and end up living in a Chinese dystopia because the Chinese will drastically benefit from non-regulated AI, or they can create their own AI dystopia. A non-AI dystopia is the least likely scenario.

If you are suggesting that China may use AI to attack Europe, they can invest in defense without unleashing AI domestically. And I don't think China will become a utopia with unregulated AI. My impression after having visited it was not one of a utopia, and knowing how they use technology, I don't think AI will usher it in, because our visions of utopia are at odds. They may well enjoy what they have. But if things go sideways they may regret it too.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#164

Post by MrDarcy »

jstummbillig wrote: post #156
jjani wrote: post #107

SamA is in a hurry because he's set to lose the race. We're at peak valuation and he needs to convert something now . If the entrenched giants (Google, Microsoft and Apple) catch up - and Google 100% has, if not surpassed - they have a thousand levers to pull and OpenAI is done for. Microsoft has realized this, hence why they're breaking up with them - Google and Anthropic have shown they don't need OpenAI. Galaxy ph…

[flagged]

And yet the analysis is spot on. Gemini and Claude are both clearly better, today.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#165

Post by ricardobeat »

pi-err wrote: post #133
jjani wrote: post #107

SamA is in a hurry because he's set to lose the race. We're at peak valuation and he needs to convert something now . If the entrenched giants (Google, Microsoft and Apple) catch up - and Google 100% has, if not surpassed - they have a thousand levers to pull and OpenAI is done for. Microsoft has realized this, hence why they're breaking up with them - Google and Anthropic have shown they don't need OpenAI. Galaxy ph…

Sounds a lot like "Google+ will catch Facebook in no time". OpenAI has been on a winning streak that makes ChatGPT the default chatbot for most of the planet. Everybody else like you describe is trying to add some AI crap behind a button on a congested UI. B2B market will stay open but OpenAI has certainly not peaked yet.

I know a single person who uses ChatGPT daily, and only because their company has an enterprise subscription.

My impression is that Claude is a lot more popular – and it’s the one I use myself, though as someone else said the vast majority of people, even in software engineering, don’t use AI often at all.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#166

Post by blueprint »

kranke155 wrote: post #150
nfRfqX5n wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ask 10 people on the street about chatgpt or gemini and see which one they know

thats just brand recognition. The fact that people know Coca Cola doesnt mean they drink it.

or that they would drink it if a well designed, delicious, but no HFCS nor sugar alternative were marketed with funding

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#167

Post by NBJack »

pi-err wrote: post #133
jjani wrote: post #107

SamA is in a hurry because he's set to lose the race. We're at peak valuation and he needs to convert something now . If the entrenched giants (Google, Microsoft and Apple) catch up - and Google 100% has, if not surpassed - they have a thousand levers to pull and OpenAI is done for. Microsoft has realized this, hence why they're breaking up with them - Google and Anthropic have shown they don't need OpenAI. Galaxy ph…

Sounds a lot like "Google+ will catch Facebook in no time". OpenAI has been on a winning streak that makes ChatGPT the default chatbot for most of the planet. Everybody else like you describe is trying to add some AI crap behind a button on a congested UI. B2B market will stay open but OpenAI has certainly not peaked yet.

Defacto victory.

Facebook wasn't some startup when Google+ entered the scene; they were already cash flow positive, and had roughly 30% ads market share.

OpenAI is still operating at a loss despite having 50+% of the chatbot "market". There is no easy path to victory for them here.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#169

Post by 91bananas »

m_krebs wrote: post #68
the_duke wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGI is matter of when, not if. It will likely require research breakthroughs, significant hardware advancement, and anything from a few years to a few decades. But it's coming. ChatGPT was released 2.5 years ago, and look at all the crazy progress that has been made in that time. That doesn't mean that the progress has to continue, we'll probably see a stall. But AIs that are on a level with humans for many common ta…

"X increased exponentially in the past, therefore it will increase exponentially in the same way in the future" is fallacious. There is nothing guaranteeing indefinite uncapped growth in capabilities of LLMs. An exponential curve and a sigmoidal curve look the same until a certain point.

And if we apply the 80/20 rule, feels like we're at about 50-75% right now. So we're almost getting close to done with the easy parts. Then come the hard parts.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#170

Post by rileyphone »

no_wizard wrote: post #140
pi-err wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds a lot like "Google+ will catch Facebook in no time". OpenAI has been on a winning streak that makes ChatGPT the default chatbot for most of the planet. Everybody else like you describe is trying to add some AI crap behind a button on a congested UI. B2B market will stay open but OpenAI has certainly not peaked yet.

Facebook had immense network effects working for it back then. What network effect does OpenAI have? Far as I can tell, moving from OpenAI to Gemini or something else is easy. It’s not sticky at all. There’s no “my friends are primarily using OpenAI so I am too” or anything like that. So again, I ask, what makes it sticky?

From talking to people, the average user relies on memories and chat history, which is not easy to migrate. I imagine that's the part of the strategy to keep people from hopping model providers.
Post reply on HN