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

231–240 of 746 posts

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#231

Post by whynotminot »

lolinder wrote: post #70

So the non-profit retains control but we all know that Altman controls the board of the non-profit and I'd be shocked if he won't have significant stock in the new for-profit (from TFA: "we are moving to a normal capital structure where everyone has stock"). Which means that regardless of whether the non-profit has control on paper, OpenAI is now even better structured for Sam Altman's personal enrichment. No more ca…

Isn’t Sam already very rich? I mean it wouldn’t be the first time a guy wanted to be even richer, but I feel like we need to be more creative when divining his intentions

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#232

Post by HaZeust »

theoryofx wrote: post #36

"We made the decision for the nonprofit to retain control of OpenAI after hearing from..." [CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN CALIFORNIA AND DELAWARE] This indicates that they didn't actually want the nonprofit to retain control and they're only doing it because they were forced to by threats of legal action.

When I read that, I was actually fairly surprised about how brazen they were about who they called on for this action. They simply just said it.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#233

Post by gscott »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #184
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.

AI companies are already automating huge swaths of document analysis, customer service. Doctors are straight up using ChatGPT to diagnose patients. I know it’s fun to imagine AI is some big scam like crypto, but you’d have to be ignoring a lot of genuine non hype economic movement at this point to assume GAI isn’t making any money. Why does the forum of an incubator that now has a portfolio that is like 80% AI so rou…

When the wright brothers made their plane they didn't expect today that there are thousands of planes flying at a time.

When the Internet was developed they didn't imagine the world wide Web.

When cars started to get popular people still thought there would be those who are going to stick with horses.

I think you're right on the AI we're just on the cusp of it and it'll be a hundred times bigger than we can imagine.

Back when oil was discovered and started to be used it was about equal to 500 laborers now automated. One AI computer with some video cards are now worth x number of knowledge workers. That never stop working as long as the electricity keeps flowing.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#234

Post by alganet »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #177
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.

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.

That reminds me of the Dictator movie.

All dissidents went into Little Wadyia.

When the Dictator himself visited it, he started to fake his name by copying the signs and names he saw on the walls. Everyone knew what he was.

Internet social networks are like that.

Now, this moat thing. That's hilarious.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#235

Post by jimbokun »

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.

It doesn’t?

That name recognition made Coca Cola into a very successful global corporation.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#236

Post by dom96 »

blueprint wrote: post #168
MrDarcy wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

there are plenty of things that I simply cannot use Gemini for

I asked Gemini today to replace the background of a very simple logo and it refused. ChatGPT did it no problem (though it did take a long time because apparently lots of people were doing image generation).

I guess Gemini just refused because of a poor filter for sensitive content. But still, it was annoying.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#237

Post by miki123211 »

pphysch wrote: post #229
miki123211 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI (or, more specifically, Chat GPT) is CocaCola, not Facebook. They have the brand recognition and consumer goodwill no other brand in AI has, incredibly so with school students, who will soon go into the professional world and bring that goodwill with them. I think better models are enough to dethrone OpenAI in API, B2C and internal enterprise use cases, but OpenAI has consumer mindshare, and they're going to b…

> who will soon go into the professional world and bring that goodwill with them. ...Until their employer forces them to use Microsoft Copilot, or Google Gemini, or whatever, because that's what they pay for and what integrates into their enterprise stack. And the new employee shrugs and accepts it.

Just like people are forced to use web Office and Microsoft Teams, and start prefering them over Google Docs and Slack? I don't think so.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#238

Post by pphysch »

bhouston wrote: post #56
sz4kerto wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they consider themselves to have low(er) chance of winning. They could think either, but they obviously can't say the latter.

OpenAI is winning in a similar way that Apple is winning in smartphones. OpenAI is capturing most of the value in the space (generic LLM models), even though they have competitors who are beating them on price or capabilities. I think OpenAI may be able to maintain this position at least for the medium term because of their name recognition/prominence and they are still a fast mover. I also think the US is going to b…

Switching between Apple and Google/Android ecosystems is expensive and painful.

Switching from ChatGPT to the many competitors is neither expensive nor painful.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#239

Post by PeterStuer »

BosunoB wrote: post #226
mandevil wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most of that 9 billion was spent on training new models and on staff. If they stopped spending money on R&D, they would already be profitable.

But only if everyone else stopped improving models as well.

In this niche you can be irrellevant in months when your models drop behind.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#240

Post by joshtbradley »

martinohansen wrote: post #131

Imagine having a mission of “ensure[ing] that artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits all of humanity” while also believing that it can only be trusted in the hands of the few > A lot of people around OpenAI in the early days thought AI should only be in the hands of a few trusted people who could “handle it”.

He's very clearly stating that trusting AI to a few hands was an old, naiive idea that they have evolved from. Which establishes their need to keep evolving as the technology matures.

There is a lot to criticize about OpenAI and Sama, but this isn't it.

Post reply on HN