I don't think it would have killed openai. It would have fixed it.
The winners get to write history.
So Anthropic and Google? I only hear "ChatGPT" used as an invective these days.
Greg Brockman interview [video]
141–150 of 276 posts
Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worse? There is nothing wrong with wanting 1B. Anybody who said they wouldn't want it is lying.
Nonsense. What the hell would you do with 1B? Give it to charities maybe. Maybe set up an investment where dividends are paid to charity. Running out of ideas
Set up a nice investment vehicle with maybe 400m so I can get 1.6m in dividends a year which would be better enough to comfortably travel the world, have a private chef, someone who organized travel so I don't have to..
A nice 12 person yacht on the Mediterranean is 400k eur for 2 weeks (with staff) so I'd realize it's not enough and invest the rest so I could get comfy.
Along the way help friends and family, pay off mortgages, usually good stuff.
It's not that hard to spend 4% a year of that.
Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd finally feel financially secure
Really? If anything less than $1B isn't enough then it is never enough. $1B is the new $100M thanks to ongoing currency debasement. Also, there is something called "taxes" which is what makes anyone who has millions or billions to want even more money and the IRS will still come after you anywhere in the world. Otherwise they have to renounce their citizenship and move to a tax haven.
I'm not in the US, so I don't care about the IRS.
Tax wise at this level there are very tax efficient vehicles available.
Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a direct response to the person I was replying to, that's how posts work.
The person you were replying to said: > There is nothing wrong with wanting 1B. Anybody who said they wouldn't want it is lying. You said: > I'd spend 95% of it making the lives of others better Again, well done you. And... I don't think that's a counter example? Being this virtuous, wouldn't you love to give away a billion? Wouldn't you enjoy it very much? You could write comments about it and people would upvote yo…
I do not want a billion dollars, there is no ethical way to get a billion dollars. If I accidentally had a billion dollars I would get rid of the billion dollars as quickly as possible.
The op thinks that I, as well as most of the other responses to them, are liars
Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]
#145Why can't someone ask what happened in Ilya's mind. Firing Sam and then signing the solidarity letter of Sam to leave OpenAI if was fired. Other than that, all other information seems kind of just going over the surface.
Yes, that, please! I also never understood why the board resigned after ousting Sam...
Because they lost and crumbled. They were unbelievably outmatched by Sam (a world-class manipulator) and Satya (the money behind OpenAI and himself a political genius.)
They were outmaneuvered, panicked, and folded.
Did they have to? No. But in the moment they thought they were on the precipice of nuking a deca-billion dollar company, their life’s greatest work, and a generational company.
It’s hard to stand against what they did. Unsurprising they couldn’t.
Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
The objectional part would be: - in 2019, OpenAI created a capped-profit subsidiary in order to attract funding from commercial entities Particularly if it creates a conflict of interest for anyone making decisions on behalf of the nonprofit
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 defining differentiating feature is revenge porn.
Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that, please! I also never understood why the board resigned after ousting Sam...
Because they lost and crumbled. They were unbelievably outmatched by Sam (a world-class manipulator) and Satya (the money behind OpenAI and himself a political genius.) They were outmaneuvered, panicked, and folded. Did they have to? No. But in the moment they thought they were on the precipice of nuking a deca-billion dollar company, their life’s greatest work, and a generational company. It’s hard to stand against…
Then they should have made the position clear to the public, or at the very least have some communication with the employees. It's not hard to say that they were against Sam for some particular reason, if they are firing him. At least if the reason is good that might have given them some credibility.
And why did Ilya become Sam lover after 2 days?
Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nonprofit doesn't mean anything, since people can just route the profits into salaries. It's just another legacy regulation that may have once once had a societally-constructive purpose that wealthy people just use as one of the array of financial tools to help implement their latest scams. IMO, here are no legitimate nonprofits. Western countries have been utterly strangled by nonprofits. Governments fund them with…
One reform I would make would be to limit tax breaks to actual charitable activity within an organization, instead of a blanket tax break to the whole organization. For example if a Church/Hospital runs a soup kitchen and homeless shelter, those resources should be tax free, but maybe the rest of their activities shouldn't be by default. Another reform I would make would be around independent governance and removing…
> Another reform I would make would be around independent governance and removing donor control of charities to reduce the number of sham Rich Guy foundations.
This one is tough. I mean, look at the Clinton Foundation. One reason to believe that $1 there is more effective than somewhere else is _because_ the Clinton’s are closely involved.
Of course, you get massive donations there because people want to influence the Clintons and/or _through_ the Clintons. Would those people / states donate otherwise? Would they donate to _better_ organizations? Maybe! Maybe not!
* Also I’m not saying the Clinton Foundation is more/less effective. You’re almost certainly better donating to GiveDirectly, but it’s not on its face ridiculous to think that they, specifically, could effect a _different_ type of change than others would have access to/influence over.
Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
The objectional part would be: - in 2019, OpenAI created a capped-profit subsidiary in order to attract funding from commercial entities Particularly if it creates a conflict of interest for anyone making decisions on behalf of the nonprofit
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
Elon's purchase offer was in 2025, after the success of ChatGPT showed that OpenAI's IP (much if not most of it developed after 2019) could be commercially valuable. I think it is also debatable whether Elon's purchase offer was in good faith.
It was not clear in 2019 that OpenAI's IP would ultimately be worth billions. That was well before the current AI boom.
Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]
#150Point of order: Anthropic is the most important AI company now.
People discount Google/Deepmind but a lot of the original research was done there including inventing transformers which form the basis of the other AI companies.
If anything, the amount of original and foundational research at Google is a black mark against their position now. They blew a hell of a lead.
I’m willing to discount what they did almost a decade ago (“Attention is All You Need” was 2017) in an industry that moves this quickly. The execution of an Anthropic matters more now.