101–110 of 809 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ones selling the shovels are doing well, but otherwise yeah nobody is making any money. For the true believers that's just a temporary setback on the way to becoming trillionaires though.
I think the people getting salaries are doing just fine
The incremental transformation from non-profit to for-profit... does anyone have legal standing to sue? Early hires, who were lured there by the mission? Donors? People who were supposed to be served by the non-profit (everyone)? Some government regulator?
In a normal situation, the primary people with standing to prevent such a move would be the board members of the non-profit, which makes sense. Luckily for Sam, the employees helped kick out all the dissenters a long time ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not a tax specialist but from my understanding a non-profit is a for-profit that doesn't pay dividends. Why would the government care?
No, a non-profit is one in which there are no shareholders. The non-profit entity can own a lot and be extremely successful and wealthy, but it cannot give that money to any shareholders. It can pay out large salaries, but those salaries are scrutinized. It doesn't prevent abuse, and it certainly doesn't prevent some unscrupulous person from becoming extremely wealthy with a non-profit, but it is a little more compli…
The most surprising thing to me in this is that the non-profit will still exist. Not sure what the point of it is anymore. Taken as a whole, OpenAI is now just a for-profit entity beholden to investors and Sam Altman as a shareholder. The non-profit is really just vestigial. I guess technically it's supposed to play some role in making sure OpenAI "benefits humanity". But as we've seen multiple times, whenever that g…
> The most surprising thing to me in this is that the non-profit will still exist. That entity will scrape the internet and train the models and claim that "it's just research" to be able to claim that all is fair-use. At this point it's not even funny anymore.
It does suit the modus operandi of a number of American companies that start out as literally illegal/criminal operations until they get big and rich enough to pay a fine for their youthful misdeeds.
By the time some of them get huge, they're in bed with the government to dominate the market.
"OpenAI to remove non-profit control and give Sam Altman equity"
https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/o...
Lot of people unhappy about this yet not at all unhappy (or even caring) about the 1,000s of others who started out for profit. And while we're all here hacking away (we're hackers, right?) many of us with startups, what is it we're chasing? Profit, money, time, control. Are we different except in scale? Food for thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The most surprising thing to me in this is that the non-profit will still exist. That entity will scrape the internet and train the models and claim that "it's just research" to be able to claim that all is fair-use. At this point it's not even funny anymore.
Scraping the entire internet for training data without regard for copyright or attribution - specifically to use for generative AI to produce similar content for profit. How this is being allowed to happen legally is baffling. It does suit the modus operandi of a number of American companies that start out as literally illegal/criminal operations until they get big and rich enough to pay a fine for their youthful mis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consistent here meaning, I guess, that all voting power will go to Sam Altman personally, right?
Well, he is the one that did most of the actual research and work, riiiiight?
I'm ignorant on this topic so please excuse me. Why did `AI` happen now? What was the secret sauce that OpenAI did that seemed to make this explode into being all of a sudden?
My general impression was that the concept of 'how it works' existed for a long time, it was only recently that video cards had enough VRAM to hold the matrix(?) within memory to do the necessary calculations.
If anybody knows, not just the person I replied to.Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only hard if you're that kind of person. Not everyone is like that. And those kind of people have difficulty believing this.
Everyone is like that when the number is potentially in the trillions. There are just people who are like that and people who think they aren’t because they’ve never been within a digit grouping of it.
No, we're really not all like that.
I stopped caring about money at 6 digits a decade ago, and I'm not even at 7 digits now because I don't care for the accumulation of stuff — if money had been my goal, I'd have gone to Silicon Valley rather than to Berlin, and even unexciting work would have put me between 7 and 8 digits by this point.
I can imagine a world in which I had made "the right choices" with bitcoin and Apple stocks — perfect play would have had me own all of it — and then I realised this would simply have made me a Person Of Interest to national intelligence agencies, not given me anything I would find more interesting than what I do with far less.
I can imagine a future AI (in my lifetime, even) and a VN replicator, which rearranges the planet Mercury into a personal O'Neill cylinder for each and every human — such structures would exceed trillions of USD per unit if built today. Cool, I'll put a full-size model of the Enterprise D inside mine, and possibly invite friends over to play Star Fleet Battles using the main bridge viewscreen. But otherwise, what's the point? I already live somewhere nice.
> There are just people who are like that and people who think they aren’t because they’ve never been within a digit grouping of it.
Does it seem that way to you because you yourself have unbounded desire, or because the most famous business people in the world seem so?
People like me don't make the largest of waves. (Well, not unless HN karma counts…)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will they finally rename the company?
ClopenAI
Or "clopen-source software", projects that claim to be open-source but vital pieces are proprietary.