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

Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 339 posts

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#191

Post by scottyah »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #96
ants_everywhere wrote: post #48

> Our current structure does not allow the Board to directly consider the interests of those who would finance the mission Why should it? You can't serve two masters. They claim to serve the master of human-aligned AI. Why would they want to add another goal that's impossible to align with their primary one?

I want to put my opinion somewhere and as a reply to this seems like a good option. I am anti-capitalism and anti-profit and anti-Microsoft, but I can take a step back and recognize the truth to what’s being said here. They give the context that hundreds of billions are being spent on AI right now, and if OpenAI wants to remain competitive, they need significantly more money than they originally anticipated. They’re…

It seems to me like they started out aiming for a smaller role, pursuing AGI through the advancement of algorithms and technologies. After their 15min of fame where they released half-baked technology (in the true Stanford Way), they seem to be set on monopolizing AGI.

They only need the billions to compete with the other players.

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#192

Post by Drew_ »

mikeyouse wrote: post #109
franga2000 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it illegal? If it is, not amount of explaining will make it legal.

That's not really true and is at the heart of much of the 'confusion' about e.g. tax evasion vs. tax avoidance. You can do illegal things if you don't get prosecuted for them and a lot of this type of legal wrangling is to give your lawyers and political allies enough grey area to grab onto to shout about selective prosecution when you're called out for it.

I don't see how that's relevant. In what case is the difference between tax evasion and avoidance just the motive/explanation? I'm pretty sure the difference is purely technical.

Moreover, I don't think a lack of prosecution/enforcement makes something legal. At least, I don't think that defense would hold up very well in court.

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#193

Post by scottyah »

vimbtw wrote: post #165

It’s incredible how much time and political maneuvering it took Sam Altman to get to this point. He took on the entire board and research scientists for every major department and somehow came out the winner. This reads more like an announcement of victory than anything else. It means Sam won. He’s going to do away with the non-profit charade and accept the billions in investment to abandon the vision of AGI for ever…

You don't win until you die, he just looks to be ahead for now.

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#194

Post by dragonwriter »

chis wrote: post #106
paxys wrote: post #53

I don't understand why they are spending so much time and effort trying to put a positive spin on this whole for-profit thing. No one is buying it. We all know what's going on. Just say "we want to make lots of money" and move on with your lives.

I think often company spin like this is more targeted towards internal employees than the outside world. Employees on the inside are always going to have a decent percentage of “true believers” who have cognitive dissonance if they don’t believe they’re making the world better. And so companies need to provide a narrative to keep that type of employee happy.

> I think often company spin like this is more targeted towards internal employees than the outside world.

Probably is more ti employees than the general public, but it is even more targeted to the growing number of lawsuts against the conversion, since the charity nonprofit’s board is required to act in the interest of its charitable purpose even in a decision like this.

It is directed at defeating the idea, expressed quite effectively in the opening of Musk’s suit, that “Never before has a corporation gone from tax-exempt charity to a $157 billion for-profit, market-paralyzing gorgon—and in just eight years. Never before has it happened, because doing so violates almost every principle of law governing economic activity. It requires lying to donors, lying to members, lying to markets, lying to regulators, and lying to the public.”

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#195

Post by sourcepluck »

rvz wrote: post #137
chis wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think often company spin like this is more targeted towards internal employees than the outside world. Employees on the inside are always going to have a decent percentage of “true believers” who have cognitive dissonance if they don’t believe they’re making the world better. And so companies need to provide a narrative to keep that type of employee happy.

It's quite frankly more than that. They think we are all idiots into believing that so-called "AGI" is going to make the world a better place, whilst investors, employees are laughing all the way to the bank with every new fundraising round. First being a non-profit, then taking Microsoft's money, then ditching non-profit status to a for-profit organization and now changing definitions of "Open" and "AGI" to raise mo…

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

I hadn't explicitly said to myself that even for a modern company OpenAI maybe has a particularly fond relationship with this Orwellian use of language to mean its opposite. I wonder if we could go so far as to say it's a defining feature of the company (and our age).

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#196

Post by jefftk »

Seattle3503 wrote: post #189
jefftk wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We are turning our non profit into a for profit because we want to make money" isn't legal. To make this transition in a way that maximizes how much money they can make while minimizing what they lose to lawsuits they need to explain what they're doing in a positive way.

> "We are turning our non profit into a for profit because we want to make money" isn't legal. Source? The NFL did this because they were already making a lot of money. As I understand it, the tax laws practically required the change.

The NFL was a 501c6 trade association, not a 501c3 though?

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#197

Post by habosa »

Sam Altman is one of the biggest threats to humanity right now, and I’m basing that opinion on his own statements.

He believes that AGI has the potential to dismantle or destroy most of the existing world order. He believes there is some non-zero chance that even in the most capable hands it could lead to disaster. He believes OpenAI is uniquely positioned to bring AGI to the world, and he is doing everything in his power to make it possible. And let’s be honest, he’s doing it for money and power.

To me this is indefensible. Taking even the smallest chance of creating a catastrophe in order to advance your own goals is disgusting. I just hope he’s wrong and the only thing that comes of OpenAI is a bunch of wasted VC money and some cool chatbots. Because if he’s right we’re in trouble.

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#198

Post by sobellian »

jefftk wrote: post #149
sobellian wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there's really no legal recourse if a 501c3 markets itself as a research institute / OSS developer, collects $130MM, and then uses those donations to seed a venture-backed company with closed IP in which the donors get no equity? One that even competes with some of the donors?

There is recourse, in that a 501c3 is limited in what it can do with it's assets: it must use them to advance its charitable purpose. In this case the OpenAI board will attempt to make the case that this approach, with partial ownership of a public benefit company, is what's best for their mission. If donors got equity in the PBC or the owned PBC avoided competing with donor owned companies this would not be consiste…

Right, I pointed out the competition to show that the donors are suffering actual damages from the restructuring. I don't think any of the critics here seriously expect the PBC model to fulfill the nonprofit's stated mission in any case.

This is not just an issue for the change that OpenAI is contemplating right now, but also the capped for-profit change that happened years ago. If that's found to be improper, I'm curious if that entitles the donors to any kind of compensation.

ETA: looking into this, I found the following precedent (https://www.techpolicy.press/questioning-openais-nonprofit-s...).

> A historic precedent for this is when Blue Cross' at the time nonprofit health insurers converted into for-profit enterprises. California Blue Cross converted into what's now Anthem. They tried to put a small amount of money into a nonprofit purpose. The California Attorney General intervened and they ultimately paid out about $3 billion into ongoing significant health charitable foundations in California. That's a good model for what might happen here.

So my guess is there's no compensation for any of the donors, but OpenAI may in the end be forced to give some money to an open, nonprofit AI research lab (do these exist?). IANAL so that's a low-confidence guess.

Still, that makes me so queasy. I would never donate to a YC-backed nonprofit if this is how it can go, and I say that as a YC alum.

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#199

Post by romesmoke »

They claim their mission is to ensure that AGI benefits all humanity. What a preposterous lie.

I remember asking myself when ChatGPT was launched: "why would any sane person massively deploy such a thing?"

It's the money and the power, stupid.

OpenAI doesn't have any mission. To have a mission means to serve a purpose. To serve means to have higher values than money and power. And yeah, there is a hierarchy of values. The closest statement I can accept is "we will try to get all of humanity addicted to our models, and we couldn't care less about the consequences".

Wanna know why they'll lose? Because they'll get addicted too.

Post reply on HN