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

171–180 of 746 posts

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#171

Post by bsimpson »

cshimmin wrote: post #155
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?

Yep, I mostly interact with these AIs through Cursor. When I want to ask it a question, there's a little dropdown box and I can select openai/anthropic/deepseek whatever model. It's as easy as that to switch.

Most of my exposure to LLMs has been through GitHub's Copilot, which has that same interface.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#172

Post by mandevil »

Jefro118 wrote: post #154
grey-area wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I think you’re correct that they know the jig is up, but I would say they know the AI bubble is about to burst so they want to cash out before that happens. There is little to no money to be made in GAI, it will never turn into AGI, and people like Altman know this, so now they’re looking for a greater fool before it is too late.

They made $4 billion last year, not really "little to no money". I agree it's not clear they can justify their valuation but it's certainly not a bubble.

But didn't they spend $9 billion? If I have a machine that magically turns $9 billion of investor money into $4 billion in revenue, I need to have a pretty awesome story for how in the future I am going to be making enormous piles of money to pay back that investment. If it looks like frontier models are going to be a commodity and it is not going to be winner-take-all... that's a lot harder story to tell.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#173

Post by jjani »

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]

Come on, at least provide your argument, we're curious! I've brought the bear case, so what's your bull case? :)

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#174

Post by nicce »

bpodgursky wrote: post #127
nicce wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thought process it not different than it was with nuclear weapons. The primary difference is the observability - with satellites we had some confidence that other nations respected treaties, or that they had enough reaction time for mutual destruction, but with this AI development we lack all that.

Only countries with nuclear weapons had an actual seat at the table when the world banned new nuclear weapon programs.

That is why we see the current AI competition and some attempts from companies to regulate it so that "it is safe only in their hands".

https://time.com/6288245/openai-eu-lobbying-ai-act/

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#175

Post by nativeit »

Jefro118 wrote: post #154
grey-area wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I think you’re correct that they know the jig is up, but I would say they know the AI bubble is about to burst so they want to cash out before that happens. There is little to no money to be made in GAI, it will never turn into AGI, and people like Altman know this, so now they’re looking for a greater fool before it is too late.

They made $4 billion last year, not really "little to no money". I agree it's not clear they can justify their valuation but it's certainly not a bubble.

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when a person holds two contradictory beliefs at the same time.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#177

Post by _Algernon_ »

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.

Social media has the benefit of network effects which is a pretty formidable moat.

This moat is non-existent when it comes to Open AI.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#178

Post by nativeit »

rileyphone wrote: post #170
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?

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.

That sounds eminently solvable.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#179

Post by TZubiri »

I'm not gonna get caught in the details, I'm just going to assume this is legalese cognitive dissonance to avoid saying "we want this to stop being an NFP because we want the profits."

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#180

Post by tastyface »

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”.

Donating millions to a fascist president (in Altman’s case) seems pretty authoritarian to me. And he seems happy enough hanging out with Thiel and other Yarvin groupies.
Post reply on HN