661–670 of 809 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sam and all the others. At this point, there should be required courses in college to teach this seemingly required skill to future corporate USA.
[flagged]
"openai is nothing without its people." well, the key people left. soon, it will just be sam and his sycophants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Or maybe he is just a gready lier? From the outside looking in how can you tell the difference?
Maybe he is only a greedy liar. I don't know. I'm just stating my personal belief/speculation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
To be fair both of them probably didn't imagine Stripe would be the one today. You can apply the same logic for any successful companies, like the guy who gave up 10% of Apple for some changes.
It is quite likely they knew the latter as relatively low risk expected outcome .
Even at 100M exit, which by valley standards (even in 2010s) is not a lot, 1-2% (after further rounds of dilution) would have yielded 1-2M return . A 200x return for very little downside i.e. a gift .
There is a reason why there is FOMO and little due diligence for really hot startups amongst VCs , most times it is about access to the round which is difficult rather than risk of returns, we only read about the spectacular failures like FTX . We don’t hear about the Stripe, AirBnb, or Figma, OpenAI or spaceX funding rounds .
Converting to a for-profit changes the tax status of donations. It also voids plausibility for Fair Use exemptions. I can see large copyright holders lining up with takedowns demanding they revise their originating datasets since there will now be a clear-cut commercial use without license.
> It also voids plausibility for Fair Use exemptions. I can see large copyright holders lining up with takedowns I thought so for a moment but then again Meta, Anthropic (I just checked and they have a "for profit and public benefit" status whatever that means), Google or that Musk's thing aren't non-profits, are they ? There are lawsuits in motion for sure but with how it stands today I think ai gets off the hook.
Altman and OpenAI deserve their success. They’ve been key to the LLM revolution and the push toward AGI. Without their vision to make a product out of an LLM that hundreds of millions of people now use and have greatly enriched their lives, companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Meta wouldn’t have invested so heavily in AI. While we’ve heard about the questionable ethics of people like Jobs, Musk, and Altman, t…
Reuters had the exclusive yesterday but somehow it never surfaced for long here: "OpenAI to remove non-profit control and give Sam Altman equity" https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/o...
It appeared but was buried on the second page and never made it to the front page, for some weird reason. Some in the discussion speculated that it was due to a flame war detection algorithm: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41651548
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are all examples of people who were not even remotely looking at the sums of money involved in AGI, both in terms of investment required and reward. I used “trillions” rather than “billions” for a reason. Inflation adjust it all you want, none of these passed up 1/10th of this opportunity.
It's possible Tim Berners-Lee gave up hundreds of billions. Regardless, you've missed the point. Some people value their integrity over $trillions, and refuse to sell humanity out. Others would sell you out for $50. Or to put it another way: Some people have enough , and some never will.
You could prove me wrong easily. Find someone who raised (inflation adjusted) tens of billions, had the opportunity to make trillions, and declined. You can’t. You can likely take that down two orders of magnitude and still not succeed.
People who did some work on their own and open sourced something small that turned into something huge are not even close to what we’re talking here. They didn’t turn down a trillion, they turned down $100k that turned into a trillion later.
It isn’t about integrity. It’s about how humans rationalize. “Nobody is being hurt here.” “This can improve humanity.” “I’ll do good things with the money.”
It’s easy to say people have “integrity” when you just define it as adhering to your belief system when the stakes seem low, not their belief system when the stakes are clearly high.