571–580 of 809 posts
I wish they would at least rename the company to "ClosedAI" because that's exactly what it is at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's about the narrative they tried to create. The spin. It doesn't matter much if they were technically behaving as a for-profit entity previously. What matters is that they wanted the public (and likely, their talent) to _think_ that they weren't even interested in making a profit as this would be a philosophical threat to the notion of any sort of impartial or even hopefully benevolent originator of AGI (a goal wh…
Occam's razor: I think Sam's personal narrative is the correct one. He built a non-profit that took off in a way that he didn't expect it and now a for-profit is the best way to run the lightning they've caught. In terms of profit, AFAICT, Sam doesn't have designs on building extra large yachts and his own space agency but what he wants is to be the one at the stead of building what he considers is world-changing tec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's about the narrative they tried to create. The spin. It doesn't matter much if they were technically behaving as a for-profit entity previously. What matters is that they wanted the public (and likely, their talent) to _think_ that they weren't even interested in making a profit as this would be a philosophical threat to the notion of any sort of impartial or even hopefully benevolent originator of AGI (a goal wh…
Occam's razor: I think Sam's personal narrative is the correct one. He built a non-profit that took off in a way that he didn't expect it and now a for-profit is the best way to run the lightning they've caught. In terms of profit, AFAICT, Sam doesn't have designs on building extra large yachts and his own space agency but what he wants is to be the one at the stead of building what he considers is world-changing tec…
When seen through the rearview mirror, the whole narrative screams of self-importance and duplicity. GPT-2 was too dangerous, and only they were trust-worthy enough to possess. They were trust-worthy because this was a non-profit, so "interest aligned with humanity". This charade has continued even to barely some months ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's about the narrative they tried to create. The spin. It doesn't matter much if they were technically behaving as a for-profit entity previously. What matters is that they wanted the public (and likely, their talent) to _think_ that they weren't even interested in making a profit as this would be a philosophical threat to the notion of any sort of impartial or even hopefully benevolent originator of AGI (a goal wh…
Occam's razor: I think Sam's personal narrative is the correct one. He built a non-profit that took off in a way that he didn't expect it and now a for-profit is the best way to run the lightning they've caught. In terms of profit, AFAICT, Sam doesn't have designs on building extra large yachts and his own space agency but what he wants is to be the one at the stead of building what he considers is world-changing tec…
World: "But what if it was like, a lot of money?"
Sam: "Oh alright you convinced me. Fuck my principles."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Occam's razor: I think Sam's personal narrative is the correct one. He built a non-profit that took off in a way that he didn't expect it and now a for-profit is the best way to run the lightning they've caught. In terms of profit, AFAICT, Sam doesn't have designs on building extra large yachts and his own space agency but what he wants is to be the one at the stead of building what he considers is world-changing tec…
Sam: "I'm not in it for the money. I have principles." World: "But what if it was like, a lot of money?" Sam: "Oh alright you convinced me. Fuck my principles."
Can anybody explain how this actually works? What happens to all of the non-profit's assets? They can't just give it away for investors to own. The non-profit could maybe sell its assets to investors, but then what would it do with the money? I'm sure OpenAI has an explanation, but I really want to hear more details. In the most simple analysis of "non-profit becomes for-profit", there's really no way to square it ot…
I've actually worked through a similar situation for a prior startup. We were initially funded by a large, hospital system (non-profit) who wanted to foster innovation and a startup mentality. After getting started, it became clear that it was effectively impossible for us to operate like a startup under a non-profit. Namely, traditional funding routes were neigh impossible and the hospital didn't want direct ownersh…
This is the part that should land people literally in jail. A non-profit should not be able to donate its assets to a for-profit, and if it's the same people running both companies, those people must be sent to prison for tax evasion. There is no other way to preserve the integrity of the "non-profit" status with this giant loophole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Recording devices, you know a record player had a profound effect on artists. go back
We didn't need to take people's music to build a record player, and when we printed records, we paid the artists for it. So yeah it had a profound effect, but we got consent for the parts that fundamentally relied on other people.
I can't help but wonder if things would be different if Sam Altman wasn't allowed to come back to OpenAI. Instead, the safeguards are gone, challengers have left the company, and the bottom line is now the new priority. All in opposition to ushering in AI advancement with the caution and respect it deserves.
Similar example can be seen with the demise of Twitter under the new owner, which has no safeguards or guardrails - anyone who opposed him is gone and we can see in what state it is now.
Given what Sam has done by clearing out every single person who went against him in the initial coup and completely gutting every safety related team the entire world should be on notice. If you believe what Sam Altman himself and many other researchers are saying, that AGI and ASI may well be within reach inside this decade, then every possible alarm bell should be blaring. Sam cannot be allowed to be in control of…
It's interesting because one of the points Sam emphatically stresses over and over on most podcasts he's gone on in the past 4 years is how crucial it is that a single person or a single company or a collection of companies controlling ASI would be absolutely disastrous and that there needs to be public, democratic control of ASI and the policies surrounding it. Personally I still believe he thinks that way (in contr…