Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI’s last post-money valuation was less than a trillion. They’ll probably cross that point in the future, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
It was $852 billion - 0.1% of which is $852 million
85.2m*
Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)
21–30 of 73 posts
Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)
#22i always thought there were two reasons for AI interest on HN.
1. since AI has captured the imagination of capitalists and they think this is the next industrial revolution, they gotta be in it to win it. combined with the fact that i believe most people here are wealthy or at least aspirationally so, that explained half of it.
2. the other half is that AI as a tech is interesting from a mathematical and compsci point of view, tho certainly not interesting enough to justify the proportion of topics about it here.
i guess i should add a 3rd reason.
3. ycomb has a financial stake in spreading the news about how wonderful this tech is!
lolol
Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)
#23Despite not publicly moving away from what has been said about Sam* Jessica Livingston's personal stake in OpenAI is maybe at most 0.1% or less and Paul Graham's, afaik, is 0. So the bias doesn't seem as large as OP thinks * https://xcancel.com/paulg/status/2041366050693173393 And "toughness, adaptability, and determination" >>> "ambition", frankly
Such suspicious phrasing lol. So you’re saying Paul Graham and his wife Jessica have 800 MILLION dollars worth of OpenAI stock, and that’s not so significant?
We're forced to decide whether 0.8B is enough to risk her credibility over, or, if it matters to us, gather more information first
Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)
#24Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)
#25Could someone (non-AI) summarize this? I'm sorry but I just literally don't have time to even read long posts from very reputable sources. I know I need the info but time just isn't there in my life right now.
Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)
#26i always thought there were two reasons for AI interest on HN. 1. since AI has captured the imagination of capitalists and they think this is the next industrial revolution, they gotta be in it to win it. combined with the fact that i believe most people here are wealthy or at least aspirationally so, that explained half of it. 2. the other half is that AI as a tech is interesting from a mathematical and compsci poin…
The only thing that should be surprising to anyone who knows about the early history of OpenAI is how little of it YC owns, given how much it leveraged YC’s credibility to get started (early employees joined an institution called “YC Research”, operating from YC’s office space). Once that stake is divided up among all the LPs and small unit holders, it’s not a huge outcome.
Also: nothing gets sustained attention on HN unless good hackers find it interesting. Our entire objective is to be the website that attracts the best hackers, serves them the most interesting content and facilitates the most interesting discussions. That can’t happen if we’re nefariously pushing a commercial agenda.
Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)
#27Greg Brockman (President of OpenAI) also said that OpenAI is around 80% close to achieving "AGI", but it was disclosed that his stake in OpenAI is worth around 30BN. So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean? It depends on who you ask. It appears to many to mean "A Great IPO" or "A Gigantic IPO" at this point rather than "Artificial General Intelligence" which has been clearly hijacked to mean something…
""Artificial General Intelligence" which has been clearly hijacked to mean something else."
I mean, the goalposts shifted. The game Go used to be considered to require true AI. Passing the turing test. Scanning, analyzing and improving complex codebases largely on their own would have been considered some sort of AGI by me 6 years ago.
Now sure, we all know they lack true understanding. But it gets blurry at times what that does mean.
But I don't buy that there will be a magic point, where self improving AGI explodes towards singularity. The current approach is very, very energy and compute intense and that is unlikely to change.
Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such suspicious phrasing lol. So you’re saying Paul Graham and his wife Jessica have 800 MILLION dollars worth of OpenAI stock, and that’s not so significant?
We're forced to decide whether 0.8B is enough to risk her credibility over, or, if it matters to us, gather more information first
Exactly! It's only $0.0008T. Pocket change really...
Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)
#29Greg Brockman (President of OpenAI) also said that OpenAI is around 80% close to achieving "AGI", but it was disclosed that his stake in OpenAI is worth around 30BN. So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean? It depends on who you ask. It appears to many to mean "A Great IPO" or "A Gigantic IPO" at this point rather than "Artificial General Intelligence" which has been clearly hijacked to mean something…
""Artificial General Intelligence" which has been clearly hijacked to mean something else." I mean, the goalposts shifted. The game Go used to be considered to require true AI. Passing the turing test. Scanning, analyzing and improving complex codebases largely on their own would have been considered some sort of AGI by me 6 years ago. Now sure, we all know they lack true understanding. But it gets blurry at times wh…
Maybe the dystopian AI development will result in energy funding and advancements that actually benefit most of us. I really hope all this turns out in a net positive for humanity. If we wont get true "AGI", which we are far far away from, we at least could make some advancements in different areas.
Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)
#30Greg Brockman (President of OpenAI) also said that OpenAI is around 80% close to achieving "AGI", but it was disclosed that his stake in OpenAI is worth around 30BN. So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean? It depends on who you ask. It appears to many to mean "A Great IPO" or "A Gigantic IPO" at this point rather than "Artificial General Intelligence" which has been clearly hijacked to mean something…
That's the trick right? What do they really mean by AGI. Depending on how narrow you go, it sounds like we've already achieved it. However, if they keep saying they'll achieve it and not defining it before making such statements that determine what it is, they can keep saying it endlessly to create hype.
One key thing I've heard about AGI which I think would be the most determining factor for me is a model that learns on the fly. Which could be done one way or another, but when you consider that LLMs basically run like "ROM" files, it makes it a little complicated.
I think we need to re-imagine how LLMs are built, train, and run. But also, figure out how to drastically lower the cost of running them.