Live data from Hacker News

Evolving OpenAI's Structure

openai.com

281–290 of 746 posts

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#281
post #272
post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't collect data?

If you use it, that means you received more value than you gave up. It's called consumer surplus.

If I pay £200,000 for a car, I received more value than I gave up, otherwise I wouldn't have given the owner £200,000 for her car. No reasonable person would say the car was "free"...

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#282
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yup, if Elon hadn't gotten so jealous and spiteful to him I'm sure he'd be one of Elon's leading sycophants.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah but I remember when search first started getting integrated with the browser and the "switch search engine" thing was significantly more prominent. Then Google became the default and nobody ever switched it and the rest is history. So the interesting question is: How did that happen? Why wasn't Google search an easily swapped commodity? Or if it was, how did they win and defend their default status? Why didn't t…

> So the interesting question is: How did that happen? Why wasn't Google search an easily swapped commodity? Or if it was, how did they win and defend their default status? Why didn't the existing juggernauts at the time (Microsoft) beat them at this game?

Maybe the big amount of money they've given to Apple which is their direct competitor in the mobile space. Also good amount of money given to Firefox, which is their direct competitor in the browser space, alongside side Safari from Apple.

Most people don't care about the search engine. The default is what they will used unless said default is bad.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#284

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…

That world never existed. Yes, pockets did - IT professionals with broadband lines and spare kit hosting IRC servers and phpBB forums from their homes free of charge, a few VC-funded companies offering idealistic visions of the net until funding ran dry (RIP CoHost) - but once the web became privatized, it was all in service of the bottom line by companies. Web 2.0 onwards was all about centralization, surveillance,…

I don’t think the parent was saying that everyone’s intentions were pure until recently, but rather that naked greed wasn’t cool before, but now it is.

The Internet has changed a lot over the decades, and it did used to be different, with the differences depending on how many years you go back.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#286
post #272
post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't collect data?

If you use it, that means you received more value than you gave up. It's called consumer surplus.

> If you use it, that means you received more value than you gave up. It's called consumer surplus

This is true for literally any transaction. Actually, it's true for any rational action. If you're being tortured, and you decide it's not worth it to keep your secrets hidden any longer, you get more than you give up when you stop being tortured.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#287
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just to get things right. The big AI LLM hype started end of 2022 with the launch of ChatGPT, DALL-E 2, .... Most people in society connect AI directly to ChatGPT and hence OpenAI. And there has been a lot of progress in image generation, video generation, ... So I think your timeline and views are slightly off.

> Just to get things right. The big AI LLM hype started end of 2022 with the launch of ChatGPT, DALL-E 2, ....

GPT-2 was released in 2019, GPT-3 in 2020. I'd say 2020 is significant because that's when people seriously considered the Turing test passed reliably for the first time. But for the sake of this argument, it hardly matters what date years back we choose. There's been enough time since then to see the plateau.

> Most people in society connect AI directly to ChatGPT and hence OpenAI.

I'd double-check that assumption. Many people I've spoken to take a moment to remember that "AI" stands for artificial intelligence. Outside of tongue-in-cheek jokes, OpenAI has about 50% market share in LLMs, but you can't forget that Samsung makes AI washing machines, let alone all the purely fraudulent uses of the "AI" label.

> And there has been a lot of progress in image generation, video generation, ...

These are entirely different architectures from LLM/chat though. But you're right that OpenAI does that, too. When I said that they don't stray much from chat, I was thinking more about AlexNet and the broad applications of ML in general. But you're right, OpenAI also did/does diffusion, GANs, transformer vision.

This doesn't change my views much on chat being "not seeing the forest for the trees" though. In the big picture, I think there aren't many hockey sticks/exponentials left in LLMs to discover. That is not true about other AI/ML.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#288
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You saying —- with a straight face —- that post 2020 LLM AIs have made only incremental progress?

Yep, compared to beating the Turing test, the progress has been linear with exponentially growing investment. That's diminishing marginal returns.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#290

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN