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

Evolving OpenAI's Structure

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–746 of 746 posts

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#741

Post by DirkH »

sensanaty wrote: post #423
atlasunshrugged wrote: post #13

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,…

Lmaoing at their casual use of AGI as if them or any of their competitors are anywhere near it.

Proposition:

Please promise to come back to this comment in 2030 and playfully mock me for ever being worried and I will buy you a coffee. If AGI is invented before 2030 please buy me one and let me mock you playfully.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#742

Post by NoahZuniga »

Twirrim wrote: post #516
NoahZuniga wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads intermixed into llm responses is so clearly evil that openai will never do it so long as the nonprofit has a controlling stake (which it currently still has), because the nonprofit would never allow it.

The insidious part is it doesn't have to be so blatant as adverts, you can achieve a lot by just slight biases in text output. Decades ago I worked for a classical music company, fresh out of school. "So.. how do you anticipate where the music trend is going", I once naively asked one of the senior people on the product side. "Oh, we don't. We tell people really quietly, and they listen". They and the marketing team…

Ok but this is still clearly evil, so the controlling non profit would not allow this either.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#743

Post by edmundsauto »

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #292
edmundsauto wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a pretty significant different between “buy $9 for $4” and selling a service that costs $9 to build and run per year for $4 per year. Especially when some people think that service could be an absolute game changer for the species. It’s ok to not buy into the vision or think it’s impossible. But it’s a shallow dismissal to make the unnuanced comparison, especially when we’re talking about a brand new technol…

It's a commodity technology and VCs are investing as if this were still a winner-takes-all play. It's obviously not, if there were any doubt about that, Deepseek's R1 release should have made it obvious. > But it’s a shallow dismissal to make the unnuanced comparison, especially when we’re talking about a brand new technology - who knows what the cost optimization levers are. Who knows what the market will bear after…

Every new tech has companies start and fail, as the consumer market changes and things are tried and fail. There’s no way to predict ahead of time what will work, what won’t - and so a thousand ships are launched with only a few reaching shore.

Is that a bubble? I suppose it is; it’s also probably the right strategy.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#744

Post by sp527 »

reasonableklout wrote: post #384
sp527 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You could parachute [Sam] into an island full of cannibals and come back in 5 years and he'd be the king." http://paulgraham.com/fundraising.html

That says PG thinks Sam is clever. I don't think there's any moral judgement there. The statement I posted suggests PG likes Sam and would love to keep working with him.

You really don't understand subtext...

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#745

Post by xpe »

xpe wrote: post #454
timewizard wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace Musk with "any billionaire." He's a symptom of a problem. He's not actually the problem.

If you are a materialist, the laws of physics are the problem. But to speak plainly, Musk is a complex figure, frequently problematic, and he often exacts a tool on the people around him. Part of this is attributable to his wealth, part to his particulars. When he goes into "demon mode", to use Walter Isaacson's phrase, you don't want to be in his way.

* tool -> toll

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#746

Post by Night_Thastus »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #87
Night_Thastus wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing OpenAI is doing, or ever has done, has been close to AGI.

I agree with you, but that’s kindof beside the point. Open AI’s thesis is that they will work towards AGI, and eventually succeed. In the context of that premise, Open AI still doesn’t believe AGI would be winner-takes-all. I think that’s an interesting discussion whether you believe the premise or not.

If they're saying it's not 'winner takes all' it's cover to shield them from the fact that they aren't (or may not always be) in the top spot. They would not be saying that if they were undeniably the best - they'd say the opposite.
Post reply on HN