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

Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 271 posts

Re: Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

#221

Post by dragonwriter »

IAmNotACellist wrote: post #51
aduffy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "coup by MSFT" conspiracy theory made no sense. Microsoft has an insanely good deal with OpenAI: * Exclusive access to resell OpenAI's technology and keep nearly all of that revenue for themselves, both cloud and services * Receive 75% of OpenAI's profits up to $1 trillion All they had to do is not rock the boat and let the golden goose keep laying eggs. A massive disruption like this, so soon after DevDay would…

OpenAI shouldn't even be making a profit, as it's a 501(c)3 charity. The whole umbrella for-profit corp they formed when they became popular should be illegal, and is clearly immoral.

> OpenAI shouldn't even be making a profit, as it's a 501(c)3 charity

First, the “OpenAI" whose profits are being discussed isn't a 501(c)3 charity, but a for-profit LLC (OpenAI Global, LLC) with three other organizations between it and the charity.

Second, charities and other nonprofits can make profits (surplus revenue), they just can't return revenues (but they can have for profit subsidiaries that return profit to them and other investors in certain circumstances.)

> The whole umbrella for-profit corp they formed when they became popular should be illegal

The umbrella organization is a charity. The for profit organizations (both OpenAI Global LLC that Microsoft invests in, and its immediate holding company parent which has some other investors besides the charity) are subordinate to the charity and its goals.

> and is clearly immoral.

Not sure what moral principal and analysis you are applying to reach this conclusion.

Re: Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

#222

Post by upwardbound »

google234123 wrote: post #220
upwardbound wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Helen Toner is well-known as well, specifically to those of us who work in AI safety. She is known for being one of the most important people working to halt and reverse any sort of "AI arms race" between the US & China. The recent successes in this regard at the UK AI Safety Summit and the Biden/Xi talks are due in large part to her advocacy. She is well-connected with Pentagon leaders, who trust her input. She also…

She has an h index of 8 :/ thats tiny for those that are unaware, in property much every field. AI papers are getting an infinite number of citations now a days because the field is exploding - just goes to show no one doing actual AI research cares about her work Anyway, the idea that the Chinese military or leadership actually will sacrifice a potential advantage in the name of ai safety is absurd.

> She has an h index of 8 :/ thats tiny

Agreed. She’s not famous for her publications. She’s famous (and intimidating) for being a “power broker” or whatever the term is for the person who is participating in off-the-record one-on-one meetings with military generals.

> Anyway, the idea that the Chinese military or leadership actually will sacrifice a potential advantage in the name of ai safety is absurd.

The point of her work (and mine and Dr. Horvitz’s as well) is to make it clear that putting AI in charge of nuclear weapons and other existential questions is self-defeating. There is no advantage to be gained. Any nation that does this is shooting themselves in the foot, or the heart.

Re: Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

#223

Post by dragonwriter »

morpheuskafka wrote: post #154
IAmNotACellist wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI shouldn't even be making a profit, as it's a 501(c)3 charity. The whole umbrella for-profit corp they formed when they became popular should be illegal, and is clearly immoral.

Doesn't Mozilla have an identical structure (which is the inverse of what you said, the nonprofit owns the for-profit--it wouldn't make any sense for a for-profit to own a non-profit due to the no private inurement requirement)?

I think Mozilla Corp is 100% owned by the nonprofit, which is a little different. It allows activity which a nonprofit couldn't directly do, and which has a different tax treatment, but its not returning profits to someone else like OpenAI Global LLC and, as I understand it, its immediate parent holding company both do.

But they are similar in that both involve a nonprofit controlling subordinate for-profit entities.

Re: Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

#224

Post by dragonwriter »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #111
quickthrowman wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have it backwards, the not for profit entity owns the for profit entity. From Wikipedia: > OpenAI is an American artificial intelligence (AI) organization consisting of the non-profit OpenAI, Inc.[4] registered in Delaware and its for-profit subsidiary corporation OpenAI Global, LLC.[5] IKEA [0] and Rolex [1] are structured in a similar manner, although different since they’re not US based. [0] https://en.m.wikip…

What’s the point of the subsidiary? Nonprofits can already raise funds by e.g. selling T-Shirts, baked goods, ai services, etc…

> What’s the point of the subsidiary

Closing the huge fundraising gap OpenAI had as a nonprofit by returning profits from commercial efforts instrumental to, but distinct from, the nonprofits charitable purpose, without sacrififing any governance or control of the subordinate entity.

Re: Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

#225

Post by KeplerBoy »

lucubratory wrote: post #217
KeplerBoy wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that tech only one deal with MSFT away?

Microsoft already signed that deal with OpenAI, they can't break contract even if they did want to take an absolutely massive bet that the venture capital CEO and President can rebuild the technical infrastructure and acumen housed at OpenAI. OpenAI can replace Sam Altman and some of his newer hires, they probably can't replace Ilya Sutskever.

Microsoft is free to sign contracts with multiple entities at a time. I guess we'll see.

Re: Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

#227

Post by jliptzin »

SilasX wrote: post #81
paxys wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup this is definitely a "our stock has fallen 2% on the news, hurry up and say something to investors!" kind of letter.

Just for once I’d like to see such a statement look like, “You sheep probably want a comment on today’s news. We’re not doing that. We’re just content to buy up all the shares you’re panic-dumping. Looking forward to flipping them back to you next week when you panic in the other direction.” (Assuming they have some plan that gives them the flexibility to trade shares directly on the market like that. I think $GME ha…

Retail didn’t move MSFT stock yesterday on that news. It was HFT bots reacting to the news. Nobody panicked.

Re: Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

#229

Post by voitvod »

samspenc wrote: post #64
xxpor wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They invested in the for-profit, not the non-profit. The non-profit controls the for-profit.

There are now 4 people left in the OpenAI non-profit board, after the ouster of both Sam and Greg today. 3 of the 4 remaining are virtual unknowns, and they control the fate of OpenAI, both the non-profit and the for-profit. Insane.

"McCauley currently sits on the advisory board of British-founded international Center for the Governance of AI alongside fellow OpenAI director Helen Toner. And she’s tied to the Effective Altruism movement through the Centre for Effective Altruism"

Re: Microsoft was blindsided by OpenAI's ouster of CEO Sam Altman

#230

Post by timthorn »

jbm wrote: post #207
dmix wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google didn't 'suddenly' beat out the search competition either. You don't need to. Decline takes time and there are always seeds and early signals.

Yes it did. There was literally no one at the level of Google when it came out. I still remember Infoseek and Yahoo, both were garbage compared to Goog. I know they aren't doing their best right now, but there is no need to rewrite history. Google was always superior to their search competitors, which is why it is so sad to see their current situation.

They might have been superior but it took a while for users to switch. Obviously some went across very quickly but AltaVista et al were still viable for a while.
Post reply on HN