351–360 of 809 posts
So are they going to give elon equity? He donated millions to the non profit and now they are going to turn around and turn the company into a for-profit based on the work done with that capital.
My understanding: OpenAI follows the same model Mozilla does. The nonprofit has owned a for-profit corporation called OpenAI Global, LLC that pays taxes on any revenue that isn’t directly in service of their mission (in a very narrow sense based on judicial precedent) since 2019 [1]. In Mozilla’s case that’s the revenue they make from making Google the default search engine and in OpenAI’s case that’s all their ChatGPT and API revenue. The vast majority (all?) engineers work for the for-profit and always have. The vast majority (all?) revenue goes through the for-profit which pays taxes on that revenue minus the usual business deductions. The only money that goes to the nonprofit tax-free are donations. Everything else is taxed at least once at the for-profit corporation. Almost every nonprofit that raises revenue outside of donations has to be structured more or less this way to pay taxes. They don’t get to just take any taxable revenue stream and declare it tax free.
All OpenAI is doing here is decoupling ownership of the for-profit entity from the nonprofit. They’re allowing the for profit to create more shares and distribute them to entities other than the non-profit. Or am I completely misinformed?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#2019:_Transition_from_n...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so?
In an effort to lower the deficit effects of the Trump tax cuts (i.e. increase revenue so they could cut further in other areas), they reclassified software developers salary so that their salaries have to be amortized over multiple years, instead of just a business expense in that year. This is usually done for assets as those things have an intrinsic value that could be sold. In this case, business have to pay taxe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The front page doesn't matter if lots of ppl are still seeing it. 300+ upvotes is plenty and the usual for a major news story in a week. It is in no way buried. Discussion can still be/should be merged. Then it'll have 1000 upvotes etc. Representing its true significance and not making us duplicate all of our discussion comments!
A lot of people get their tech news by looking at the front page of HN. An algorithm artificially stopping the day's most important news story from surfacing there, leading to the discussion only being found by people who actively go looking for that specific discussion because they learned about it elsewhere, is absolutely a big deal. I'm just glad that the Murati story falling off the front page allowed this one a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The most surprising thing to me in this is that the non-profit will still exist. That entity will scrape the internet and train the models and claim that "it's just research" to be able to claim that all is fair-use. At this point it's not even funny anymore.
Scraping the entire internet for training data without regard for copyright or attribution - specifically to use for generative AI to produce similar content for profit. How this is being allowed to happen legally is baffling. It does suit the modus operandi of a number of American companies that start out as literally illegal/criminal operations until they get big and rich enough to pay a fine for their youthful mis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of people get their tech news by looking at the front page of HN. An algorithm artificially stopping the day's most important news story from surfacing there, leading to the discussion only being found by people who actively go looking for that specific discussion because they learned about it elsewhere, is absolutely a big deal. I'm just glad that the Murati story falling off the front page allowed this one a…
A lot of people saw the story. Without searching. Maybe more by simply searching openAI. Traffic gets sent in from external feeds etc. It's not buried. But the conversation is all disjointed now. Merging the [dupe] only makes it better/stronger.
Do you have a source for this? How did they find it if not on HN?
> Merging the [dupe] only makes it better/stronger.
Moving the ~50 comments from the other thread here makes a ton of sense. All I'm saying is that this is the canonical and the other is the dupe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the situation where the first players got to scrape, then all the content companies realize what’s going on so they lock their data up behind paywalls?
Not a fan, but I'm not sure what can be done. Assets like the Internet Archive, though, should be protected at all costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything is allowed to happen until there's a lawsuit over it. A lawsuit requires a plaintiff, who can only sue over the damage suffered by the plaintiff, so taking a little value from a lot of people is a way to succeed in business without getting sued.
NY Times has sued: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-t... The crazy thing is that there hasn't been an injunction to make them stop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people running the show are well connected and stand to make billions as do would be investors. Give a few key players a share in the company and they forget their government jobs to regulate.
More likely the legal system just hasn’t caught up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems like a poor comparison. Recording devices permitted artists to sell more art. Many of the uses of AI people get most excited about seem to be cutting the expensive human creators out of the equation.
Recording devices destroyed most of the musician's jobs. Vast majority of musicians who were employed before advent of recordings didn't have their own material and were not good enough to make good recordings anyway. Same with artists now: the great ones will be much more productive, but the bottom 80-90% won't have anything to do anymore.
Current AI can greatly elevate what a beginning artist can produce. If you have a decent grasp of proportions, perspective and good ideas, but aren't great at drawing, then using AI can be a huge quality improvement.
On the other hand if you're a top expert that draws quickly and efficiently it's quite possible that AI can't do very much for you in a lot of cases, at least not without a lot of hand tuning like training it on your own work first.