Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Greg Brockman interview [video]

fs.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–276 of 276 posts

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#271

Post by az226 »

senordevnyc wrote: post #251
az226 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% disagree. - in 2025, OpenAI’s for-profit entity recapitalized from a capped-profit entity with residuals flowing to the nonprofit to a traditional public benefit corporation with traditional equity This is the egregious part. Before full for profit conversion it was worth $300B. Then after $850B. A true fiduciary would set an auction and that would set the price for for profit valuation. And then all existing in…

I may not be fully understanding it, but if the value went from $300B to $850B because of the conversion , then you can’t claim that the additional value was stolen from the nonprofit. As long as the entity was unconverted, there was a limit to what the market would value it at. Is this off?

All investors owned profit participation units with limited (capped) profits and limited return size.

After conversion, they all own unlimited profit, unlimited return shares. A lot more valuable.

The nonprofit lost the value between the two.

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#272

Post by bwhiting2356 »

overgard wrote: post #267
bwhiting2356 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment referred to AI as a bubble, and what you're describing I would not call a bubble.

I call AI a bubble because none of the finances make any sense. Everyone save for nvidia is losing money at an absurd rate (Anthropics "profitable" quarter is basically an accounting trick, not a real change). Circular financing is well known by everyone paying attention.

Valid. That's also what I would call a bubble. But if this prediction is true, that not enough people will buy their tokens to meet their projections, then it also won't be automating away everyone's jobs. That's the contradiction.

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#273

Post by bwhiting2356 »

overgard wrote: post #266
bwhiting2356 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can something be both a bubble and also eradicate the middle class's ability to make a living? There are reasonable people making the case for both of these things, that investment in AI will fall flat and that AI will be too powerful. Coalition forces are pushing them together into an anti-AI camp, but there's a contradiction. Is it too powerful or not powerful enough?

I said they want to eradicate the middle class, I didn't say they'd succeed at it. But your logic is faulty either way: > How can something be both a bubble and also eradicate the middle class's ability to make a living? Easy: it gets a lot of people fired because of AI psychosis in CEOs, then massively underdelivers on replacing them. Or it succeeds in replacing them, but ruins the economy because nobody can afford…

Big layoffs so far have been at legacy companies. Hiring at startups is strong, and the unemployment rate is steady at 4%.

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#274

Post by 93po »

tyre wrote: post #146
93po wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

worse than that is the $60 million sale price, which was comically and absurdly low. Elon himself said he was willing to buy it for significantly more than that and the fact that it wasn't able to go to the highest bidder just shows that it was bullshit

Wait, no, not at all. A non-profit shouldn’t have to take the highest bidder regardless. The whole _point_ of a non-profit is to act beyond purely short-term financial gains. “Elon buying this doesn’t align with the mission” is a completely normal, reasonable, and healthy response for most non-profits. What’s great is that we don’t need to speculate about a counter factual. He did end up building a chatbot! Whose def…

A non-profit should act in its own individual best interest. If I had a non-profit for sheltering animals and one contractor told me it would cost a million dollars to build a new shelter, and another contractor, conveniently largely owned and controlled by me, said the same shelter would cost $20 million, don't you think there's a problem if you go with the $20 million option? I imagine this scenario is highly illegal.

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#275

Post by 93po »

senordevnyc wrote: post #253
achierius wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the decision is still subject to heavy scrutiny; in fact, more than with normal for profit corporations. It does not seem like the board acted in the best interests of the nonprofit here, they acted in their own.

How did the board personally benefit?

How much did people on the board benefit from OpenAI going for-profit? Either directly by owning shares of the new for-profit, or knowing they eventually would, or by business connections to the new for-profit entity? I imagine most or all of them.

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#276

Post by senordevnyc »

93po wrote: post #275
senordevnyc wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did the board personally benefit?

How much did people on the board benefit from OpenAI going for-profit? Either directly by owning shares of the new for-profit, or knowing they eventually would, or by business connections to the new for-profit entity? I imagine most or all of them.

Ah, so you have no idea.
Post reply on HN