I think this is one of the most interesting lines as it basically directly implies that leadership thinks this won't be a winner take all market: > Instead of our current complex capped-profit structure—which made sense when it looked like there might be one dominant AGI effort but doesn’t in a world of many great AGI companies—we are moving to a normal capital structure where everyone has stock. This is not a sale,…
Evolving OpenAI's Structure
671–680 of 746 posts
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#672Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no post factum rationalization here. If you ask a human to think about how they do something before they do it, there's no post factum rationalization. If you ask an LLM to do the same, it will give you a different answer. So, there is a difference. It's all about having knowledge of your internal state and being conscious of your actions and how you perform them, so you can learn from that knowledge. Withou…
If you ask a human to think about how to do a thing, before they do it, then you will also get a different answer. There’s a good reason why schools spend so much time training that skill!
It is easy to see why, since the LLM doesn't communicate what it thinks it communicates what it thinks a human would communicate. A human would explain their inner process, and then go through that inner process. An LLM would explain a humans inner process, and then generate a response using a totally different process.
So while its true that humans doesn't have perfect introspection, the fact that we have introspection about our own thoughts at all is extremely impressive. An LLM has no part that analyzes its own thoughts the way humans do, meaning it has no clue how it thinks.
I have no idea how you would even build introspection into an AI, like how are we able to analyze our own thoughts? What is even a thought? What would this introspection part of an LLM do, what would it look like, would it identify thoughts and talk about them the way we do? That would be so cool, but that is not even on the horizon, I doubt we will ever see that in our lifetime, it would need some massive insight changing the AI landscape at its core to get there.
But, once you have that introspection I think AGI will happen almost instantly. Currently we use dumb math to train the model, that introspection will let the model train itself in an intelligent way, just like humans do. I also think it will never fully replace humans without introspection, intelligent introspection seems like a fundamental part to general intelligence and learning from chaos.
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#673> We did not really know how AGI was going to get built, or used (...) Altman keeps on talking about AGI as if we're already there.
I don't agree with Tyler on this point (although o3 really is a thing to behold) But reasonable people could argue that we've achieved AGI (not artificial super intelligence) https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/04/o3... Fwiw, Sam Altman will have already seen the next models they're planning to release
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#674This is the moment where we fumble the opportunity to avoid a repeat of Web 1.0's ad-driven race to the bottom Look forward to re-living that shift from life-changing community resource to scammy and user-hostile
1) The Pareto frontier of open LLMs will keep expanding. The breakneck pace of open research/development, combined with techniques like distillation will keep the best open LLMs pretty good, if not the best.
2) The cost of inference will keep going down as software and hardware are optimized. At the extreme, we're lookin toward bit-quantized LLMs that run in RAM itself.
These two factors should mean a good open LLM alternative should always exist, one without ulterior motives. Now, will people be able to have the hardware to run it? Or will users just put up with ads to use the best LLM? The latter is likely, but you do have a choice.
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#675Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. But they have also improved a lot. Incremental just means that the function is going up without breaking points. We haven't seen anything revolutionary, just evolutionary in the last 3 years. But the models do provide 2 or 3 times more value. So their pace of advancement is not slow.
The better you know a field the more it looks incremental. In other words, incrementalness is more a function of how much attention you pay or how deep you research it. Relativity and quantum mechanics were also incremental. Copernicus and Kepler were incremental. Deep learning itself was incremental. Based on almost identical networks from the 90s (CNN), which were using methods from the 80s (backprop) on architectu…
The more you know about it, the less groundbreaking it is.
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#676OpenAI is busy rearranging the chairs while their competitors surpass them.
Yup. Haven't used an OpenAI model for anything in 6+ months now, except to check the latest one and confirm that it is still hilariously behind Google/Anthropic.
o3 still drives really well for me.
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#677Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Given that uncertainty, we can't rule out the chance of our current AI approach leading to superintelligence I think you realise this is the weak point. You can't rule out the current AI approach leading to superintelligence. You also can't rule out a rotting banana skin in your bin spontaneously gaining sentience either. Does that mean you shouldn't risk throwing away that skin? It's so outrageous that you need at…
Isn't the problem precisely that uncertainty though? That we have many data points showing that a rotting banana skin will not spontaneously gain sentience, but we have no clear way to predict the future? And we have no way of knowing the true chance of superintelligence arising from the current path of AI research—the fact that it could be 1-in-100 or 1-in-1e12 or whatever is part of the discussion of uncertainty it…
What makes people think that the future advances in AI will continue to be linear instead of falling of and plateau? Don't all breakthrough technologies develop quickly at the start and then fall of in improvements as all the 'easy' improvements have already been made? In my opinion AI and AGI is like the car and the flying car. People saw continous improvements in cars and thought this rate of progress would continue indefinitely. Leading to cars that have the ability to not only drive but fly as well.
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#678There are a lot of good points here, by multiple vantage points as far as views for the argument of how imminent, if it - metaphysically or logistically - viable at all even, AGI is. I personally think the conversation, including obviously in the post itself, has swung too far in the direction of how AGI can or will potentially affect the ethical landscape regarding AI, however. I think we really ought to concern our…
That’s an intentional misdirection, and an all too common one :(
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#679Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure it has. For every Woz, there was a Jobs; for every Linus, a Bill (Gates). For every starry-eyed engineer or developer who just wants to help people, there are business people who will pervert it into an empire and jettison them as soon as practical. For every TED, there’s a Davos; for every DEFCON, there’s a glut of vendor-specific conferences. We should champion the good people who did the good things and manag…
> For every Woz, there was a Jobs; for every Linus, a Bill (Gates) Nobody said there were no bastards. Just that they didn’t have dominion. We let this happen, in part by being lazy and cynical.
I think most people will snitch on bad behavior as children. However, our systems often allow other children to discipline the snitch, rather than correct the negative behavior the snitch raised. We see it in adult systems as well: whistleblowers often end up with substantially shorter and poorer lives for attempting to assert accountability or consequences on those who committed them, while the perpetrators often enjoy lives of immense wealth and reward regardless of the whistleblower's actions.
If you want people to stop being "lazy" and "cynical", then you have to support them when systems turn against them. In my experience, none of ya'll actually want to also walk out of work when layoffs happen following a profitable quarter for no other reason than to juice the share price, none of ya'll also want to walk off the job because your employer is taking contracts from authoritarian regimes, none of ya'll also want to put yourselves in the line of fire and risk harm over your purported values.
Don't blame us cynics when we have the battle scars showing our commitment to a better tomorrow. What have you done to prevent cynicism?
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#680Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a deeper issue on "justification", here is something I wrote related to this in 2001 on the risks of non-profits engaging in self-dealing when they create artificial scarcity to enrich themselves: https://pdfernhout.net/on-funding-digital-public-works.html#... "Consider this way of looking at the situation. A 501(c)3 non-profit creates a digital work which is potentially of great value to the public and of great v…
>"Self-dealing [...] convert some government supported PhD thesis work [...] the public (including me) never gets full access to the results of the publicly-funded work [...] Your 2001 essay isn't a good parallel to OpenAI's situation. OpenAI wasn't "publicly funded" i.e. with public donations or government grants. The non-profit was started and privately funded by a small group of billionaires and other wealthy peop…