271–280 of 809 posts
The most surprising thing to me in this is that the non-profit will still exist. Not sure what the point of it is anymore. Taken as a whole, OpenAI is now just a for-profit entity beholden to investors and Sam Altman as a shareholder. The non-profit is really just vestigial. I guess technically it's supposed to play some role in making sure OpenAI "benefits humanity". But as we've seen multiple times, whenever that g…
Altman and OpenAI deserve their success. They’ve been key to the LLM revolution and the push toward AGI. Without their vision to make a product out of an LLM that hundreds of millions of people now use and have greatly enriched their lives, companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Meta wouldn’t have invested so heavily in AI. While we’ve heard about the questionable ethics of people like Jobs, Musk, and Altman, t…
What's being discussed in this thread is not the personal failings of silicon valley darlings, but whether one of them just defrauded a few thousand people and embezzled a significant amount of capital. Citing his character flaws goes along with it though.
Are you seriously arguing that people should be exempt from law for "advancing humanity"? Because I don't see any advancements whatsoever from all of the people mentioned. Altman and Musk would get a hardon for sure though, from being mentioned together with Jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me this is a no brainer. If it’s a choice between having AI and not,
Even if the knock-on effect is "all the artists and thinkers who contributed to the uncompensated free training set give up and stop creating new stuff"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the assets were sold to the for profit at a fair price I could see this being legal (even if it shouldn't be). At least in that case the value generated by the non-profit tax free would stay locked up in non-profit land. The biggest problem with this is that there's basically no chance that the sale price of the non-profit assets is going to be $150 billion, which means that whatever the gap is between the valuati…
For-profit startups don’t pay taxes while growing either, because they aren’t making any profit during that phase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ClopenAI
I hope some journalist popularizes "clopen" as a neologism to describe organizations that claim to be open and transparent but in practice are closed and opaque. Or "clopen-source software", projects that claim to be open-source but vital pieces are proprietary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not weird, it's illegal. There's a lot of jurisdiction around preventing this sort of abuse of the non-profit concept. The reason why the people involved are not on trial right now is a bit of a mystery to me, but could be a combination of: * Still too soon, all of this really took shape in the past year or two. * Only Musk has sued them, so far, and that happened last month. * There's some favoritism from the g…
> Dismantling OpenAI is actually a business strategy for many other players now. Which ones exactly? NVIDIA is drinking sweet money from OpenAI. Microsoft & Apple are in cahoots with it. Meta/Facebook seems happy to compete with OpenAI on a fair playing field. Anthropic lacks the resources. Amazon doesn't seem to care. Google is asleep.
Amazon gets paid either way, because even if open ai doesn’t use them, where are you going to cloud your api that’s talking with open ai?
If open ai looks weakened I think we’ll see everyone else has a service they want you to try. But there’s no use in making much noise about that, especially during an election year. No matter who wins, all the rejected everywhere will blame AI, and who knows what that will look like. So, sit back and wait for the leader of the pack to absorb all the damage.