191–200 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, gee. When you put it like that, Hitler existed, so really we can't fault anybody for anything short of orchestrating the genocide of 12 million people.
Musk engineered the deaths of 14 million people https://time.com/article/2026/05/15/usaid-shutdown-rise-glob...
lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it would be helpful for you to clarify which part of the chain you found objectionable: - in 2015, OpenAI was founded as a Delaware nonprofit - in 2017, OpenAI discovered the scaling laws and realized they needed far more compute (and thus money) than they had initially anticipated - that discovery precipitated a series of negotiations between the founders on how to restructure OpenAI to raise more money for…
I find it unsettling that a company who wants to eradicate the middle class's ability to make a living, possibly bring about the singularity (I don't think they'll accomplish it, but they want to), and are actively creating one of the most massive bubbles we've ever seen is somehow a "public benefit" company. Absolutely nothing they're doing is to the public's benefit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about stealing 12 million books of copyrighted human culture, at massive scale, and then enclosing the value created inside proprietary, investor-backed systems? Something wrong with that? What happens if you go tomorrow, downtown San Francisco, and leave a bookstore with one book without paying? "Behind every great fortune there is a crime" - Honoré de Balzac
Even though the founders of OpenAI are not exactly someone you'd root for, comparisons to theft are silly. By that token it would be illegal to go into a library, read a book, and actually remember what was in it. Except in this case the reader is a robot. LLMs are such a fundamentally different thing that existing laws don't really make sense. Wait! Put the pitchfork down! I know, I know, stealing is stealing, and O…
I just don’t understand why a non-profit was allowed to do this. Does this not set a precedent that non-profit doesn’t actually mean anything? You can just use a favorable structure until it’s time to enrich yourself.
I think it would be helpful for you to clarify which part of the chain you found objectionable: - in 2015, OpenAI was founded as a Delaware nonprofit - in 2017, OpenAI discovered the scaling laws and realized they needed far more compute (and thus money) than they had initially anticipated - that discovery precipitated a series of negotiations between the founders on how to restructure OpenAI to raise more money for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If his entire personal diary got exposed and that's the worst that's in it, good for him.
What about stealing 12 million books of copyrighted human culture, at massive scale, and then enclosing the value created inside proprietary, investor-backed systems? Something wrong with that? What happens if you go tomorrow, downtown San Francisco, and leave a bookstore with one book without paying? "Behind every great fortune there is a crime" - Honoré de Balzac
and that murderee's mom is publically resentful against and tweets anti-sam Altman content regularly. It tells me that founder Altman has clearly not demonstrated proper empathy, sympathy or repaired what should be an emotional easy case of delivering to the mom whatever she needs for her peace (or maybe he's actually guilty of complicit in crimes).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it unsettling that a company who wants to eradicate the middle class's ability to make a living, possibly bring about the singularity (I don't think they'll accomplish it, but they want to), and are actively creating one of the most massive bubbles we've ever seen is somehow a "public benefit" company. Absolutely nothing they're doing is to the public's benefit.
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?
Did that answer your questions and address the contradictions?
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they stayed small and 100% non-profit, would the influence or value of the non profit be more, or less, than it is today? I think the non-profit has around 25% ownership of something that is around a trillion dollars of on-paper money. I guess we will see what things are still worth when the crazy days come to an end.
> I think the non-profit has around 25% ownership of something that is around a trillion dollars of on-paper money. But the purpose of a non profit is not to maximise profit in a for profit investment. How well is non profit doing at furthering its goals? It formerly had the purpose of “safely” ensuring artificial intelligence benefits all of humanity. It looks like it gave up on that so its staff could be incredibly…
But you ignored the part about influence, would an OpenAI that did not scale up and had no world beating models have much of a say in how AI gets developed
This is not to say that I think they are doing everything right, but I see people bitter that they didn't take the path towards forgotten irrelivance.
What would you reccommend that they should have done that would still lead to them being relevant to the world development of AI?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If his entire personal diary got exposed and that's the worst that's in it, good for him.
What about stealing 12 million books of copyrighted human culture, at massive scale, and then enclosing the value created inside proprietary, investor-backed systems? Something wrong with that? What happens if you go tomorrow, downtown San Francisco, and leave a bookstore with one book without paying? "Behind every great fortune there is a crime" - Honoré de Balzac