241–250 of 271 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> put money into a truly open research lab given OpenAI’s track record. Why? It’s hard to imagine anyone putting any significant amounts of money (in comparison to the MS deal anyway) without any exclusivity rights at least
OpenAI has the most capable language model in the world, that’s bordering on a national security asset. I could see the US government stepping in to provide funding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is probably a dumb question, but what are some specific scenarios of financial malfeasance that could’ve taken place? Like Altman stealing money from OpenAI?
That's my unsubstantiated hypothesis. The board going so public of this nature could only mean he was doing some grave shit like embezzlement or intentional financial misreporting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Microsoft, which has invested billions in OpenAI, learned that OpenAI was ousting CEO Sam Altman just a minute before the news was shared with the world, according to a person familiar with the situation. Well this probably disproves the theory that it was a power grab by Microsoft. It didn’t make too much sense anyway since they already have access to tech behind GPT and Microsoft doesn’t necessarily need the clou…
Microsofts AGI predicted this a year back, so they've just been sitting on it.
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)?
The most obvious example is the corporate foundation, but if we believe the first result from a search you're right in they are controlled but not owned by the for-profit:
> A for-profit cannot own a nonprofit because a nonprofit has no owners. However, a for-profit can set up a structure in which it effectively has control over the nonprofit, subject to applicable laws, including those regarding private inurement, private benefit, and corporate self-dealing
> https://nonprofitlawblog.com/can-a-nonprofit-own-a-for-profi...
My guess is Sam’s New AI venture Humane has either taken key tech from OpenAI? Key talent or in some other way trod on something internal. One thing to consider is that by making AI wearable it is a step toward embodiment- which has always been a problem for AI learning as it does not interact with the real world. Getting live video, audio and sensor data from humans moving through space doing things in context will…
1) A long standing disagreement between AI-safety and AI-profiteering with Ilya on one side and Altman on the other. Ilya (board member) was the one who told Altman to attend video call, then told him he was fired.
2) Some side dealing from Altman - raising new VC funds - maybe in conflict of interest with OpenAI, that was the final straw.
There also appears to be a lot of rumors about Altman's personal conduct, but even if true that doesn't seem to jibe with the official statement over the reason for his firing, or Brockman and others resigning in unison - more reflection of the internal rift.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually news orgs don’t put their reputation on the line unless they feel there’s some substance
Bloomberg got away with conjuring The Big Hack story by intentionally mispresenting anecdotes and their reputation didn't take a single dent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 t…
> Not sure what moral principal and analysis you are applying to reach this conclusion. I'm not the parent, but I think it's clear: if I'm a charity, and I have a subordinate that is for profit, then I'm not a charity. I'm working for profit, and disguising myself for the benefits of being a charity.
Obviously, the for profit subsidiary ooerates for profit—and where its not a wholly owned subsidiary, it may return some profit to investors that aren't the charity—but neither the subsidiary nor the outside investors getbthe benefits of charity status.