41–50 of 70 posts
> Since then, OpenAI's board has been refreshed with more tech executives, chaired by Bret Taylor, former Salesforce co-CEO who now runs his own AI startup. Any corporate changes need approval from its nine-person non-profit board. Why would the non-profit board approve a change to a for-profit company? Wouldn't this be against the nature of the non-profit entity that was founded and which they are supposed to govern…
This reeks of conflicts of interests
I'm a bit concerned about how this might impact their commitment to AI safety though. The non-profit structure was supposed to be a safeguard against profit-driven decision making. Will they still prioritize responsible AI development as a regular for-profit company?
Seems like a good time for a rebrand to remove "Open" from the name. Maybe "InevitableAI"?
How this not in the front page of HN is really beyond me. I asked ChatGPT this simple question and the responses are really commendable and a bit hilarious: Prompt: Since OpenAI the owner of the ChatGPT has removed non-profit control of OpenAI and gave Sam Altman equity what is the more appropriate alternative name to OpenAI now? Answers: Given the shift in OpenAI's structure from a non-profit to a more profit-orient…
But whether something highly unlikely and slightly sensational like a finger on the scales, or the far more likely and utter banal explanation that people in vast numbers see their fates as intertwined with the status quo, the result is the same: on some deep institutional level HN is never going to hold Altman to account.
So the question becomes, what authority handles the cases the community can’t? On paper that’s regulators and legislators. Those folks ostensible and actual missions aren’t identical, and differ more with time, but they intersect at “prevent would-be autocrats being so brazen as to provoke de facto revolt”.
The public doesn’t hate Big Tech generally and its sociopath fringe specifically enough to make it a true wedge issue yet, but it’s trending that way.
I’d go so far as to say that most almost anyone breathing the Bay air isn’t capable of truly internalizing how deeply the general public loathes the modern Valley machine: it’s dramatically more than Wall St at any time.
It’s getting even trickier than usual to predict which historical social norms are still bright lines, but “profiting personally via using a charity as a vehicle for fraud” is still putting popular people in prison with bipartisan support.
And Altman isn’t popular even here. He’s feared here, but loved almost nowhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How this not in the front page of HN is really beyond me. I asked ChatGPT this simple question and the responses are really commendable and a bit hilarious: Prompt: Since OpenAI the owner of the ChatGPT has removed non-profit control of OpenAI and gave Sam Altman equity what is the more appropriate alternative name to OpenAI now? Answers: Given the shift in OpenAI's structure from a non-profit to a more profit-orient…
I also find it curious if not distressing that this wasn’t pinned at #1 all day. To be clear: I’m quite sure that @dang is deeply committed to running a clean shop on moderation. But whether something highly unlikely and slightly sensational like a finger on the scales, or the far more likely and utter banal explanation that people in vast numbers see their fates as intertwined with the status quo, the result is the…
This has been an insane, slow, public descent into everything they promised not to do, it’s so crazy to have seen people inside try to stop it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also find it curious if not distressing that this wasn’t pinned at #1 all day. To be clear: I’m quite sure that @dang is deeply committed to running a clean shop on moderation. But whether something highly unlikely and slightly sensational like a finger on the scales, or the far more likely and utter banal explanation that people in vast numbers see their fates as intertwined with the status quo, the result is the…
If you remember Altmans coup, which was branded as a board coup against him, there were a lot of supporters here on HN trying to manufacture consent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also find it curious if not distressing that this wasn’t pinned at #1 all day. To be clear: I’m quite sure that @dang is deeply committed to running a clean shop on moderation. But whether something highly unlikely and slightly sensational like a finger on the scales, or the far more likely and utter banal explanation that people in vast numbers see their fates as intertwined with the status quo, the result is the…
If you remember Altmans coup, which was branded as a board coup against him, there were a lot of supporters here on HN trying to manufacture consent.
It sounds like you also refuse to live in fear of the goblin child of pg’s overconfidence in the joint character estimation of himself and Jessica and pg’s sloppy personal entanglements writ large as de facto public policy.
Almost no one thinks this is ok. A plurality if not a majority is still willing to co-sign because of various pressures.
“It's so deeply unimaginable to people to say i don’t really need more money... If I were to say I'm going to try and make a trillion dollars with OpenAI it would save a lot of conspiracy theories”
And now having turned OpenAI into closed AI he's trying to give himself $10bn in equity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also find it curious if not distressing that this wasn’t pinned at #1 all day. To be clear: I’m quite sure that @dang is deeply committed to running a clean shop on moderation. But whether something highly unlikely and slightly sensational like a finger on the scales, or the far more likely and utter banal explanation that people in vast numbers see their fates as intertwined with the status quo, the result is the…
If you remember Altmans coup, which was branded as a board coup against him, there were a lot of supporters here on HN trying to manufacture consent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you remember Altmans coup, which was branded as a board coup against him, there were a lot of supporters here on HN trying to manufacture consent.
I was mildly suportive of Altman. I guess I was wrong.
The real test is who carries on now that the lupine avarice has been utterly unmasked.