531–540 of 746 posts
It's somewhat odd to me that many companies operating in the public eye are basically stating "We are creating a digital god, an instrument more powerful than any nuclear weapon" and raising billions to do it, and nobody bats an eye...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-... Here is a mainstream opinion about why AGI is already here. Written by one of the authors the most widely read AI textbook: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Mod...
Why does the Author choose to ignore the "General" in AGI? Can ChatGPT drive a car? No, we have specialized models for driving vs generating text vs image vs video etc etc. Maybe ChatGPT could pass a high school chemistry test but it certainly couldn't complete the lab exercises. What we've built is a really cool "Algorithm for indexing generalized data", so you can train that Driving model very similarly to how you…
Same model trained on audio, video, images, text - not separate specialized components stitched together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ads intermixed into llm responses is so clearly evil that openai will never do it so long as the nonprofit has a controlling stake (which it currently still has), because the nonprofit would never allow it.
The insidious part is it doesn't have to be so blatant as adverts, you can achieve a lot by just slight biases in text output. Decades ago I worked for a classical music company, fresh out of school. "So.. how do you anticipate where the music trend is going", I once naively asked one of the senior people on the product side. "Oh, we don't. We tell people really quietly, and they listen". They and the marketing team…
replace LLMs with TV, or smartphones, or maybe even mcdonald's, and you've got the same idea. through TV, corporations got to control a lot of the social world and people's behavior.
Lots of words to say OpenAI will remain an SABC (Sam Altman Benefit Corporation)
Turns out the non profit structure wasn't very profitable
I think this is one of the most interesting lines as it basically directly implies that leadership thinks this won't be a winner take all market: > Instead of our current complex capped-profit structure—which made sense when it looked like there might be one dominant AGI effort but doesn’t in a world of many great AGI companies—we are moving to a normal capital structure where everyone has stock. This is not a sale,…
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…
It's somewhat odd to me that many companies operating in the public eye are basically stating "We are creating a digital god, an instrument more powerful than any nuclear weapon" and raising billions to do it, and nobody bats an eye...
The intersection of the two seems to be quite hard to find.
At the state that we're in the AIs we're building are just really useful input/output devices that respond to a stimuli (e.g., a "prompt"). No stimuli, no output.
This isn't a nuclear weapon. We're not going to accidentally create Skynet. The only thing it's going to go nuclear on is the market for jobs that are going to get automated in an economy that may not be ready for it.
If anything, the "danger" here is that AGI is going to be a printing press. A cotton gin. A horseless carriage -- all at the same time and then some, into a world that may not be ready for it economically.
Progress of technology should not be artitrarily held back to protect automateable jobs though. We need to adapt.
---
## *What Has Changed*
### 1. *OpenAI’s For-Profit Arm is Becoming a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)*
* *Before:* OpenAI LP (limited partnership with a “capped-profit” model). * *After:* OpenAI LP becomes a *Public Benefit Corporation* (PBC).
*Implications:*
* A PBC is still a *for-profit* entity, but legally required to balance shareholder value with a declared public mission. * OpenAI’s mission (“AGI that benefits all humanity”) becomes part of the legal charter of the new PBC.
---
### 2. *The Nonprofit Remains in Control and Gains Equity*
* The *original OpenAI nonprofit* will *continue to control* the new PBC and will now also *hold equity* in it. * The nonprofit will use this equity stake to fund “mission-aligned” initiatives in areas like health, education, etc.
*Implications:*
* This strengthens the nonprofit’s influence and potentially its resources. * But the balance between nonprofit oversight and for-profit ambition becomes more delicate as stakes rise.
---
### 3. *Elimination of the “Capped-Profit” Structure*
* The old “capped-return” model (investors could only make \~100x on investments) is being dropped. * Instead, OpenAI will now have a *“normal capital structure”* where everyone holds unrestricted equity.
*Implications:*
* This likely makes OpenAI more attractive to investors. * However, it also increases the *incentive to prioritize commercial growth*, which could conflict with mission-first priorities.
---
## *Potential Negative Implications*
### 1. *Increased Commercial Pressure*
* Moving from a capped-profit model to unrestricted equity introduces *stronger financial incentives*. * This could push the company toward *more aggressive monetization*, potentially compromising safety, openness, or alignment goals.
### 2. *Accountability Trade-offs*
* While the nonprofit “controls” the PBC, actual accountability and oversight may be limited if the nonprofit and PBC leadership overlap (as has been a concern before). * Past board turmoil in late 2023 (Altman's temporary ousting) highlighted how difficult it is to hold leadership accountable under complex structures.
### 3. *Risk of “Mission Drift”*
* Over time, with more funding and commercial scale, *stakeholder interests* (e.g., major investors or partners like Microsoft) might influence product and policy decisions. * Even with the mission enshrined in a PBC charter, *profit-driven pressures could subtly shape choices*—especially around safety disclosures, model releases, or regulatory lobbying.
---
## *What Remains the Same (According to the Letter)*
* OpenAI’s *mission* stays unchanged. * The *nonprofit retains formal control*. * There’s a stated commitment to safety, open access, and democratic use of AI.