Live data from Hacker News

Evolving OpenAI's Structure

openai.com

341–350 of 746 posts

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#341
I agree that this is simply Altman extending his ability to control, shape and benefit from OpenAI. Yes, this is clearly (further) subverting the original intent under which the org was created - and that's unfortunate. But in terms of impact on the world, or even just AI safety, I'm not sure the governance of OpenAI matters all that much anymore. The "governance" wasn't that great after the first couple years and OpenAI hasn't been "open" since long before the board spat.

More crucially, since OpenAI's founding and especially over the past 18 months, it's grown increasingly clear that AI leadership probably won't be dominated by one company, progress of "frontier models" is stalling while costs are spiraling, and 'Foom' AGI scenarios are highly unlikely anytime soon. It looks like this is going to be a much longer, slower slog than some hoped and others feared.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#342

> We are committed to this path of democratic AI. So were do I vote? How do I became a candidate to be a representative or a delegate of voters? I assume every single human is eligible for both, as OpenAI serves the humanity?

[deleted]

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#343

Does anyone truly believe Musk had benevolent intentions? But before we even evaluate the substance of that claim, we must ask whether he has standing to make it. In his court filing, Musk uses the word "nonprofit" 111 times, yet fails to explain how reverting OpenAI to a nonprofit structure would save humanity, elevate the public interest, or mitigate AI’s risks. The legal brief offers no humanitarian roadmap, no go…

[deleted]

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#344
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…

Sorry but perhaps you haven't looked at the actual numbers. Market share of OpenAI is like 90%+.

> Market share of OpenAI is like 90%+

Source? I've seen 10 to 20% [1][2].

[1] https://iot-analytics.com/leading-generative-ai-companies/

[2] https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/stats/openai-statistics....

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#345

Does anyone truly believe Musk had benevolent intentions? But before we even evaluate the substance of that claim, we must ask whether he has standing to make it. In his court filing, Musk uses the word "nonprofit" 111 times, yet fails to explain how reverting OpenAI to a nonprofit structure would save humanity, elevate the public interest, or mitigate AI’s risks. The legal brief offers no humanitarian roadmap, no go…

Replace Musk with "any billionaire."

He's a symptom of a problem. He's not actually the problem.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#346
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]

[deleted]

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#347

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,…

[deleted]

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#348

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,…

> That world never existed

It absolutely did. Steve Wozniak was real. Silicon Valley wasn't always a hive of liars and sycophants.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#349
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 explanation was pretty clear and coherent: The CEO was no longer adhering to the mission of the non-profit (which the board was upholding).

But they found themselves alone in that it turns out the employees (who were employed by the for-profit company) and investors (MSFT in particular) didn't care about the mission and wanted to follow the money instead.

So the board had no choice but to capitulate and leave.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#350

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

It seems a defining feature of nearly every single extremely rich person is their belief that they somehow are smarter than filthy peasants, and so he decides to "educate" them of the sacred knowledge. This may take vastly different forms - genocide, war, trying to create via bribes a better government, create a city from scratch, create a new corporate "culture", do public proselytizing of their "do better" faith, write books, classes etc.

St. Altman plans to create a corporate god for us dumb schmucks, and he will be it's prophet.

Post reply on HN