Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI to become for-profit company

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 809 posts

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#441

Post by WalterSear »

hadlock wrote: post #421
Terr_ wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can easily imagine people X decades from now discussing this stuff a bit like how we now view teeth-whitening radium toothpaste and putting asbestos in everything, or perhaps more like the abuse of Social Security numbers as authentication and redlining. Not in any weirdly-self-aggrandizing "our tech is so powerful that robots will take over" sense, just the depressingly regular one of "lots of people getting hurt…

> Not in any weirdly-self-aggrandizing "our tech is so powerful that robots will take over" sense, just the depressingly regular one of "lots of people getting hurt by a short-term profitable product/process which was actually quite flawed." We have a term for that, it's called "luddite". Those were english weavers who would break in to textile factories and destroy weaving machines at the beginning of the 1800s. Wit…

So, "I'm all right, Jack", to use another Victorian era colloquialism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_alright,_Jack

Except, we are all Jack.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#442

Post by archagon »

hadlock wrote: post #421
Terr_ wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can easily imagine people X decades from now discussing this stuff a bit like how we now view teeth-whitening radium toothpaste and putting asbestos in everything, or perhaps more like the abuse of Social Security numbers as authentication and redlining. Not in any weirdly-self-aggrandizing "our tech is so powerful that robots will take over" sense, just the depressingly regular one of "lots of people getting hurt…

> Not in any weirdly-self-aggrandizing "our tech is so powerful that robots will take over" sense, just the depressingly regular one of "lots of people getting hurt by a short-term profitable product/process which was actually quite flawed." We have a term for that, it's called "luddite". Those were english weavers who would break in to textile factories and destroy weaving machines at the beginning of the 1800s. Wit…

As I recall, the Luddites were reacting to the replacement of their jobs with industrialized low-cost labor. Today, many of our clothes are made in sweatshops using what amounts to child and slave labor.

Maybe it would have been better for humanity if the Luddites won.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#443

Post by Terr_ »

hadlock wrote: post #421
Terr_ wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can easily imagine people X decades from now discussing this stuff a bit like how we now view teeth-whitening radium toothpaste and putting asbestos in everything, or perhaps more like the abuse of Social Security numbers as authentication and redlining. Not in any weirdly-self-aggrandizing "our tech is so powerful that robots will take over" sense, just the depressingly regular one of "lots of people getting hurt…

> Not in any weirdly-self-aggrandizing "our tech is so powerful that robots will take over" sense, just the depressingly regular one of "lots of people getting hurt by a short-term profitable product/process which was actually quite flawed." We have a term for that, it's called "luddite". Those were english weavers who would break in to textile factories and destroy weaving machines at the beginning of the 1800s. Wit…

> We have a term for that, it's called "luddite".

No, that's apples-to-oranges. The goals and complaints of Luddites largely concerned "who profits", the use of bargaining power (sometimes illicit), and economic arrangements in general.

They were not opposing the mechanization by claiming that machines were defective or were creating textiles which had inherent risks to the wearers.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#445

Post by archagon »

llm_trw wrote: post #232
barbazoo wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More likely the legal system just hasn’t caught up.

Maybe, but for the first time in a century there is more money to be made in weakening copyright rather than strengthening it.

The big companies will sign lucrative data sharing deals with each other and build a collective moat, while open source models will be left to rot. Copyright for thee but not for me.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#446

Post by seadan83 »

jstummbillig wrote: post #415
anon7725 wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's hugely beneficial to our species. Perhaps the biggest “needs citation” statement of our time.

It does not need a citation. There is no citation. What it needs, right now, is optimism. Optimism is not optional when it comes to doing new things in the world. The "needs citation" is reserved for people who do nothing and chose to be sceptics until things are super obvious. Yes, we are clearly talking about things to mostly still come here. But if you assign a 0 until its a 1 you are just signing out of advancing…

Skeptics require proof before belief. That is not mutually exclusive from having hypotheses (AKA vision).

I think you raise some interesting concerns in your last paragraph.

> enormous amount of societal responsibility this puts on AI makers — which I, as a voter, will absolutely hold them accountable for

I'm unsure of what mechanism voters have to hold private companies accountable. Fir example, whenever YouTube uses my location without me ever consenting to it - where is the vote to hold them accountable? Or when Facebook facilitates micro targeting of disinformation - where is the vote? Same for anything AI. I believe any legislative proposals (with input from large companies) is very likely more to create a walled garden than to actually reduce harm.

I suppose no need to respond, my main point is I don't think there is any accountability thru the ballot when it comes to AI and most things high-tech.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#447

Post by jwr »

Can we all agree that the next time a company announces itself (or a product) as "open", we'll just laugh out loud?

I can't think of a single product or company that used the "open" word for something that was actually open in any meaningful way.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#448

Post by zo1 »

mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #11

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…

This is 85% of what the Mozilla foundation and it's group of companies did. It may not be exact, but to me it rubs me the exact same way in terms of being a bait and switch, and the greater internet being 100% powerless to do anything about it.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#449

Post by leeoniya »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #246
lenerdenator wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has legal standing to sue at any time for anything. Whether the case is any good is another matter.

In the US standing is a specific legal concept about whether you have a valid reason/role to bring up a particular issue. For example most of Donald Trump’s lawsuits around the 2020 election were rejected for a lack of standing rather than on merit (whether the case is any good).

is there a good source that shows which were dismissed as meritless vs ones dismissed due to lack of standing?

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#450

Post by jrflowers »

hadlock wrote: post #421
Terr_ wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can easily imagine people X decades from now discussing this stuff a bit like how we now view teeth-whitening radium toothpaste and putting asbestos in everything, or perhaps more like the abuse of Social Security numbers as authentication and redlining. Not in any weirdly-self-aggrandizing "our tech is so powerful that robots will take over" sense, just the depressingly regular one of "lots of people getting hurt…

> Not in any weirdly-self-aggrandizing "our tech is so powerful that robots will take over" sense, just the depressingly regular one of "lots of people getting hurt by a short-term profitable product/process which was actually quite flawed." We have a term for that, it's called "luddite". Those were english weavers who would break in to textile factories and destroy weaving machines at the beginning of the 1800s. Wit…

> We have a term for that, it's called "luddite"

The Luddites were actually a fascinating group! It is a common misconception that they were against technology itself, in fact your own link does not say as much, the idea of “luddite” being anti-technology only appears in the description of the modern usage of the word.

Here is a quote from the Smithsonian[1] on them

>Despite their modern reputation, the original Luddites were neither opposed to technology nor inept at using it. Many were highly skilled machine operators in the textile industry. Nor was the technology they attacked particularly new. Moreover, the idea of smashing machines as a form of industrial protest did not begin or end with them.

I would also recommend the book Blood in the Machine[2] by Brian Merchant for an exploration of how understanding the Luddites now can be of present value

1 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea...

2 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59801798-blood-in-the-ma...

Post reply on HN