Live data from Hacker News

Evolving OpenAI's Structure

openai.com

491–500 of 746 posts

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#491
post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 plateaui…

I can't square how OpenAi can capture users and presumably retain them when the incumbents have been capturing users for multiple decades and why can they not retain them? If every major player had an AI option, i'm just not understanding how because OpenAi moved first or got big first, the hugely massively successful companies that did the same thing for multiple decades don't have the same advantage?

Who knows how this will play out, but user behavior is always somewhat sticky and OpenAI now has 400M+ weekly active users. Currently, I'm not sure there is much of a moat, as many would jump if, say, Google released a model that is 10x better. However, there are myriad ways that OpenAI could slowly try to make their userbase even stickier:

1. OpenAI is apparently in the process of building a social network.

2. OpenAI is apparently working with Jonny Ive on some sort of hardware.

3. OpenAI is increasingly working on "memory" as a LLM feature. Users may be less likely to switch as an LLM increasingly feels like a person that knows you, understands you, has a history with you, etc.

4. Google and MSFT are leveraging their existing strengths. Perhaps you will stick with Gemini given deep integration with Android, Google Drive, Sheets, Docs, etc.

5. LLMs, as depressing as this sounds, will increasingly be used for romantic/friend purposes. These users may not want to switch, as it would be like breaking up and finding a new partner.

6. Your chat history, if it can't be easily exported/imported, may be a sticky feature, especially if it can be improved (e.g. easily search, cross-reference, chats, like a supercharged interconnecting note app with brains).

I could list 100 more of these. Perhaps none of the above will happen, but again, they have 400M weekly users and they will find ways to keep them. It's a lot easier to keep users that have a habit of showing up, then getting them in the first place. There's a reason that Google is treating this like an emergency; they are at serious risk of having their search cash cow permanently disrupted if they don't act fast to win.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing OpenAI is doing, or ever has done, has been close to AGI.

I agree with you I wonder, do you have a hypothesis as to what would be a measurement that would differentiate AGI vs Not-AGI?

When it can start wars over resources.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#494
post #374

This is the moment where we fumble the opportunity to avoid a repeat of Web 1.0's ad-driven race to the bottom Look forward to re-living that shift from life-changing community resource to scammy and user-hostile

I feel this. I had a very productive convo with an LLM today and realized that a huge part of the value of it was that it addressed my questions in a focused way, without trying to sell me anything or generate SEO rankings or register ad impressions. It just helped me. And that was incredibly refreshing in a digital world that generally feels adversarial. Then the thought came, when will they start showing ads here.…

The "good" thing is this is all way too expensive to be ad-supported. Maybe there will be some ad-supported products using very small/cheap models, but the leading edge stuff is always going to be at the leading-edge of compute usage too, and someone has to pay the bill. Even with investors subsidizing a lot of the costs, it's still very expensive to use the best models heavily for real work.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a binary classification. AGI systems can have degrees of performance and capability The "g" in AGI requires the AI be able to perform "the full spectrum of cognitively demanding tasks with proficiency comparable to, or surpassing, that of humans" [1]. Full and not full are binary. > if you oversimplify LLMs to "word autocompletion" then you can make the same argument for humans No, you can't, unless you're p…

Why are you linking a Wikipedia page like it's the ground zero for the term? Especially when neither article the page link to justify that definition see the term as a binary accomplishment. The g in AGI is General. I don't what world you think Generality isn't a spectrum, but it's sure as hell isn't this one.

That's right, and the Wikipedia page refers to the classification system:

"A framework for classifying AGI by performance and autonomy was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind researchers. They define five performance levels of AGI: emerging, competent, expert, virtuoso, and superhuman"

In the second paragraph:

"Some researchers argue that state‑of‑the‑art large language models already exhibit early signs of AGI‑level capability, while others maintain that genuine AGI has not yet been achieved."

The entire article makes it clear that the definitions and classifications are still being debated and refined by researchers.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#496
post #118

Carcinisation in action: free (foss) -> non-profit -> capped-profit -> public benefits corporation -> (you guessed it)

No, this only happens if: 1) You're successful. 2) You mess up checks-and-balances at the beginning. OpenAI did both. Personally, I think at some point, the AGs ought to take over and push it back into a non-profit format. OAI undermines the concept of a non-profit.

With 2, the real problem is that approximately 0% of the OpenAI employees actually believed in the mission. Pretty much every single one of them signed the letter to the board demanding that if the company's existence ever comes into conflict with humanity's survival, the company's existence comes first.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel this. I had a very productive convo with an LLM today and realized that a huge part of the value of it was that it addressed my questions in a focused way, without trying to sell me anything or generate SEO rankings or register ad impressions. It just helped me. And that was incredibly refreshing in a digital world that generally feels adversarial. Then the thought came, when will they start showing ads here.…

The "good" thing is this is all way too expensive to be ad-supported. Maybe there will be some ad-supported products using very small/cheap models, but the leading edge stuff is always going to be at the leading-edge of compute usage too, and someone has to pay the bill. Even with investors subsidizing a lot of the costs, it's still very expensive to use the best models heavily for real work.

Subscription services can sell ads too. See Hulu, or Netflix. Spotify might not play "radio ads" if you pay, but it will still advertise artists on your home screen.

These models being expensive leads me to think they will look at all methods of monetization possible when seeking profitability. Rather than ads being off the table, it could feasibly make ads be on the table sooner.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They deeply believe in the Ayn Rand mindset that the system that brings them the most individual wealth is also the best system for humanity as a whole.

When people that wealthy are that delusional... With few checks or balances from politics, media, or even social media... I don't think humanity as a whole is in for a great time.

It got you the 20th century

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#500

There are a lot of good points here, by multiple vantage points as far as views for the argument of how imminent, if it - metaphysically or logistically - viable at all even, AGI is. I personally think the conversation, including obviously in the post itself, has swung too far in the direction of how AGI can or will potentially affect the ethical landscape regarding AI, however. I think we really ought to concern our…

That’s an intentional misdirection, and an all too common one :(
Post reply on HN