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

261–270 of 746 posts

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#261

Post by orionsbelt »

caseyy wrote: post #222
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…

It's doubtful if there even is a race anymore. The last significant AI advancement in the consumer LLM space was fluent human language synthesis around 2020, with its following assistant/chat interface. Since then, everything has been incremental — larger models, new ways to prompt them, cheaper ways to run them, more human feedback, and gaming evaluations. The wisest move in the chatbot business might be to wait and…

Saying LLMs have only incrementally improved is like saying my 13 year old has only incrementally approved over the last 5 years. Sure, it's been a set of continuous improvements, but that has taken it from a toy to genuinely insanely useful.

Personally, deep research and o3 have been transformative, taking LLMs from something I have never used to something that I am using daily.

Even if the progress ends up plateauing (which I do not believe will happen in the near term), behaviors are changing; OpenAI is capturing users, and taking them from companies like Google. Google may be able to fight back and win - Gemini 2.5 Pro is great - but any company sitting this out risks being unable to capture users back from Open AI at a later date.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#262

Post by richardw »

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…

Or, alternatively, it’s much harder to fight with one hand behind your back. They need to be able to compete for resources and talent given the market structure, or they fail on the mission.

This is already impossibly hard. Approximately zero people commenting would be able to win this battle in Sam’s shoes. What would they need to do to begin to have a chance? Rather than make all the obvious comments “bad evil man wants to get rich”, think what it would take to achieve the mission. What would you need to do in his shoes, aside from just give up and close up shop? Probably this, at the very least.

Edit: I don’t know the guy and many near YC do. So I accept there may be a lens I don’t have. But I’d rather discuss the problem, not the person.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#263

Post by paulddraper »

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…

Yes. The answer is yes.

The world is changing and that is scary.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#264

Post by sumeno »

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…

> Doctors are straight up using ChatGPT to diagnose patients

This makes me want to invest in malpractice lawyers, not OpenAI

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#265

Post by reasonableklout »

fooker wrote: post #209
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…

Google is pretty far behind. They have random one off demos and they beat benchmarks yes, but try to use Google’s AI stuff for real work and it falls apart really fast.

That's not what early adopter numbers are showing. Even the poll from r/openai a few days ago show Gemini 2.5 with nearly 3x more votes than o3 (and far beyond Claude): https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1k67bya/what_is_cur...

Anecdotally, I've switched to Gemini as my daily driver for complex coding tasks. I prefer Claude's cleaner code, but it is less capable at difficult problems, and Anthropic's servers are unreliable.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#266

Post by freejazz »

paulddraper wrote: post #250
elAhmo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have seen how much power does the board have after the firing of Altman - none. Let's see how this plays out. PBC effectively means nothing - just take a look at Xai and its purchase of Twitter. I would love to listen reasoning explaining why this ~33 billion USD move is benefiting public.

The board had plenty of power. There was never a coherent explanation of its firing the CEO. But they could have stuck with that decision if they believed in it.

The question is not if they could, it is if they would.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#268

Post by paulddraper »

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.

Facebook fundamentally had network effects.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#269

Post by [deleted] »

HaZeust wrote: post #232
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 .

[deleted]

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#270

Post by asadotzler »

ramesh31 wrote: post #91

The explosion of PBC structured corps recently has me thinking it must just be a tax loophole at this point. I can't possibly imagine there is any meaningful enforcement around any of its restrictions or guidelines.

Not a loophole as they pay taxes (unlike non-profits) but a fig leaf to cover commercial activity with some feel-good label. The real purpose of PBC is the legal protection it may afford to the company from shareholders unhappy with less than maximal profit generation. It gives the board some legal space to do some good if they choose to but has no mandate like real non-profits which get a tax break for creating a public good or service, a tax break that can be withdrawn if they do not annually prove that public benefit to the IRS.
Post reply on HN