Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree wrt to his goal but there is no way he is autistic, and what's a human successionist?
I had the impression that he was ADHD, not autistic.
ADHD and autism frequently co-occur.
Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
321–330 of 339 posts
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#322I think at this point in time it is inevitable for OpenAI to turn for-profit due to the mind-boggling costs of building and maintaining cutting-edge AI systems. However, they should open-source their technology (in the same way that Tesla has done it before, and still kept its industry leader status in many sectors).
I think moving towards open-source and maximizing transparency is the only way that can keep OpenAI reputable in the business.
Having said that, OpenAI does not seem to want to do that, at least from what we have read in the news so far, and it seems even their definition of "AGI" is all about making profit:
https://www.the79newsletter.com/p/openai-s-definition-of-agi...
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#323I think the evolution so far has been understandable. OpenAI was never going to achieve their mission without many billions from investors, and that required paying them back. The idea to do so then funnel the rest of the profits to the non-profit for public-benefit research makes sense.
Now it's time to be honest about where this is going. This kind of structure would only make sense if 1. OpenAI had a monopoly on AI and 2. They actually contributed to public benefit research. OpenAI does not currently and probably will never again engage in public benefit research. They haven't released model weights, or even basic structural information, in a long time. They're in a very competitive industry so any discoveries made by the "non-profit" will immediately become trade secrets for the for-profit.
I'm confused. Is this tax fraud?
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#324I understand the criticisms in this thread and, based on tech leaders actions in the past, am inclined to agree with them. If only to not feel naive. However, given the extremely competitive environment for AI, if Sam Altman and OpenAI were altruistic and wanted to create a company that benefited everyone, what options do they have moving forward? Do people here think that they can remain competitive with their curre…
What they claim to want to create is a for-profit organization that replaces "most economically valuable work".
Putting aside the enormous capital, technical and energetic hurdles - where would the profits come from?
Sam's idea seems to be that governments will have to give people basic income, but he is not really an ally to the UBI movement, because in his vision mainly what needs to be bought is access to OpenAI's computer systems.
To be honest it is the onus of the venture capital class to prove they are not grifters. Talk is extremely cheap compared to the resources at their disposal. And to be fair most of them do not even claim to be altruists.
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simple tax optimization. Like new billionaires promising to significant donations. a) they don't have to donate. b) they can immediately slash those promised donations from taxes.
How can one slash a non existant donation from taxes?
It's a trick. If you donate something to charity you can write it off the taxes. After IPOs most new billionaires did it, including Zuk. It's enough to just promise it publicly. There is no time limit, it can take years to 'donate', but writing off is immediate. To optimize it even further they create their own dummy charities full of friends and relatives.
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
> an optimising agent that does the optimising faster than we do I still don't understand this. What does it mean in practice?
Example: Covid does not hate you, nor does it love you, it simply follows an optimisation algorithm — that of genetic evolution — for the maximum reproductive success, and does so without regard to the damage it causes your body while it consumes you for parts. Covid is pretty stupid, it's just a virus. And yet: I've heard the mutation rate is 3.8 × 10e−6 / nucleotide / cycle, and at about 30,000 base pairs and 10e9…
I understand it how it applies to a virus, because a virus has a mechanism for action. In fact a virus is all mechanism for action; its behaviour is emergent from just being the surviving behaviour, rather than any grand strategizing.
But for AI, they are all brains (or that's the claim) but no brawn. How do they act?
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how that's relevant. In what case is the difference between tax evasion and avoidance just the motive/explanation? I'm pretty sure the difference is purely technical. Moreover, I don't think a lack of prosecution/enforcement makes something legal. At least, I don't think that defense would hold up very well in court.
> I'm pretty sure the difference is purely technical. It's really not - there is a ton of tax law that relies on e.g. the fair market value of hard-to-price assets or if all else fails and a penalty is due, there's an entire section of the CFR on how circumstances surrounding the underpayment can reduce or eliminate the liability. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.6664-4 If you've only ever filed a personal t…
Waiving penalties depending on the circumstance is interesting but not directly relevant to the question on hand. You would have already been found to have evaded taxes before the penalty could be assessed. So the circumstance/motivation/explanation is still not the differentiator between avoidance and evasion in this case - just the penalty.
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding was the non-profit would own a for-profit, but this seems to be going the other way to have a for-profit to own a non-profit?
You can't own a non-profit. It doesn't have shares or shareholders. The article says they want the non-profit to own shares of the PBC.
The OpenAI announcements seems to lay out a much different separation of operations moving forward:
"Under the proposed structure, the public benefit corporation, which is a for-profit corporate entity, will run and control OpenAI’s operations and business, while the non-profit will hire a leadership team and staff for charitable initiatives in sectors such as healthcare, education and science."
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/dec/27/openai-pl...
The non-profit would be relegated to work off to the side to make it's impact in the world, where the new for-profit corporate entity will just focus on profit.
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think often company spin like this is more targeted towards internal employees than the outside world. Employees on the inside are always going to have a decent percentage of “true believers” who have cognitive dissonance if they don’t believe they’re making the world better. And so companies need to provide a narrative to keep that type of employee happy.
I think this underestimates the degree to which the people on these companies legitimately believe what they’re saying. I’ve worked at one of these companies and absolutely would fall into your category of being a true believer at the time. People of all stripes are extremely willing to embrace ideas that justify their own personal benefit. A rich person might be more likely to believe in trickle-down economics becau…
And a non-American may think the right to bear arms is antiquated and that a trained, armed populace isn't instrumental to a functioning democracy. What's your point? How have you established that this is the biased viewpoint and not your own?
Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission
#330Sam Altman is one of the biggest threats to humanity right now, and I’m basing that opinion on his own statements. He believes that AGI has the potential to dismantle or destroy most of the existing world order. He believes there is some non-zero chance that even in the most capable hands it could lead to disaster. He believes OpenAI is uniquely positioned to bring AGI to the world, and he is doing everything in his…
That assumes you believe his claims of disaster. We already have been through this with the printing press, telecommunications, computers and the internet. The claims of disaster are overrated.
What I was trying to say is the thing that makes him dangerous is that he believes disaster is possible and is still heading towards that possibility with maximum velocity.
That makes him one of the few people alive who, in their own estimation, has a real chance to destroy the world as we know it. And if that doesn’t humble you (he’s anything but humble) or make you change course then you’re a villain in my book.