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

781–790 of 809 posts

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#781

Post by latexr »

pj_mukh wrote: post #776
latexr wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t say “do these things inefficiently”. If we know better, we can do better. It’s like if I said “use the money to fix the potholes in this road” and you replied “but if you shove all that asphalt in the same hole, it will create a mound that stops cars from going through”. Yeah, don’t dump everything in the same place without thinking. Start by collaborating with organisations which are entrenched in studying…

Yes this has basically been the modus operandi of the gates foundation and it took them 10 years to make a dent on Malaria. They still have no clue how to “efficiently” reduce famines. They won’t touch American housing problems with a 10ft pole. That should tell you something. Go to Berkeley, tell them a Billionaire wants to build housing for the homeless in their neighborhood. See what happens. It’s a hard pill to s…

> They won’t touch American housing problems with a 10ft pole.

Why do you keep insisting on the USA? It’s not the only country in the world.

> Go to Berkeley

I will not. I’m not American.

> It’s a hard pill to swallow but the best thing billionaires can do is let us tax them

Maybe it’s a hard pill to swallow for the billionaire, but I personally agree and think you’re right. However, this conversation started with someone asking “what do you do with a a lot of money past a point” and offering only a private space agency as an alternative to working on AGI. My point was there are many other problems worth pursuing.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#782

Post by VirusNewbie »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #458
kweingar wrote: post #219

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…

> As part of funding, the non-profit would grant exclusive, irrevocable rights of it's IP to that for-profit venture.

Isn't that fraud/stealing from all the donors? I mean how is that different than just giving money to another business not owned by the non profit?

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#783

Post by pj_mukh »

exceptione wrote: post #778
pj_mukh wrote: post #771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t say macro scale, I said Los Angeles that’s the problem. Pretty much everything required to build housing, wood, labor, pre-approved land is in a massive shortage that we can’t spend money to fix. So more money to simple pump demand for all those things will have a massive inflationary impact.

Nope, LA is too much part of the macro economy to make such an impact. Wood and labor doesn't have to come from LA and even if that would double (it won't) there would be a round zero impact on inflation in LA. The land to be build was going to be sold anyways, you just get one bidder more, or several bidders less if the council makes requirements like x% social housing. Please, forget anything you are worrying about…

Literally every problem I mentioned is at its worst state possible. People with millions and billions simply waiting to buy materials or get land approvals. It’s a well know intractable problem [1] and really the crux of the problem.

If just these problems could be solved the state has more than enough funds to house everyone. What billionaires do would be wholly irrelevant (like it is now)

[1] https://www.constructiondive.com/news/construction-materials...

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#784

Post by pj_mukh »

latexr wrote: post #781
pj_mukh wrote: post #776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes this has basically been the modus operandi of the gates foundation and it took them 10 years to make a dent on Malaria. They still have no clue how to “efficiently” reduce famines. They won’t touch American housing problems with a 10ft pole. That should tell you something. Go to Berkeley, tell them a Billionaire wants to build housing for the homeless in their neighborhood. See what happens. It’s a hard pill to s…

> They won’t touch American housing problems with a 10ft pole. Why do you keep insisting on the USA? It’s not the only country in the world. > Go to Berkeley I will not. I’m not American. > It’s a hard pill to swallow but the best thing billionaires can do is let us tax them Maybe it’s a hard pill to swallow for the billionaire, but I personally agree and think you’re right. However, this conversation started with so…

My point was every other problem would be made worse by a billionaire pushing his/her money in there. Everyone is a couple of billions of money funneled away from becoming the next George Soros.

If you don’t think NIMBYism and degrowth is a problem in your country yet, just give it a couple of years. It just hit England, you’re next. No billionaire can save you.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#785

Post by ben_w »

snapcaster wrote: post #750
ben_w wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. When I wrote: > perfect play would have had me own all of it I meant literally all of it : with perfect play and the benefit of hindsight, starting with the money I had in c. 2002 from summer holiday jobs and initially using it for Apple trades until bitcoin was invented, it was possible to own all the bitcoin in existence with the right set of trades. Heck, never mind perfect play, at current…

I don't think I get your point, if any of us knew lottery numbers or roulette outcomes ahead of time we could get rich of course. Are you claiming you did have this knowledge but discarded it?

I'm saying I role-play the scenario of being valued at order-of a trillion USD. Or quarter trillion if it's the two specific trades in the example above.

Being that rich doesn't lead my imagination to new happiness that I don't already possess, only new stresses that I don't already posess. I don't want a super yacht, a personal jet, nor a skyscraper with my name on it, and a private island is less appealing to me than a tourist destination.

Knowing this about myself, I don't need to chase higher pay or timing the markets to get things I can't currently afford, instead I focus on things that I do like. Those things in aggregate cost less than €12k/year, including travel.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#786

Post by apwell23 »

wheels wrote: post #772
apwell23 wrote: post #769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It really seems like you have an axe to grind here, and I'm not completely sure why. Yea because ppl getting unfair leg up because they were chosen as the "next bill gates" by a SV white male because they look like them is merely an "axe to grind". You still haven't answered why you think he is like an olympian when he met PG other than "He is impressive because he is impressive". I feel like i am in some kind of w…

I wasn't comparing Sam to an Olympian; I was comparing you to one. Just because you were working in a donut shop at that age doesn't mean that that's the benchmark for achievement. Some people go to the Olympics. I honestly don't know enough about Sam's achievements before then to know if he'd done impressive things. The whole "white man" thing is also a complete straw man. The other two YC-founders-turned YC CEOs of…

> I was comparing you to one. Just because you were working in a donut shop at that age doesn't mean that that's the benchmark for achievement. Some people go to the Olympics. I honestly don't know enough about Sam's achievements before then to know if he'd done impressive things.

Exactly. I was comparing myself to him when i mentioned that I worked at a donut shop. At that age I ( and many others) were indistinguishable from him. I went to an ivy league too btw.

Your olympian thing is absurd here because a teenager destined to be an olympian is indeed very distinguishable from his/her peers very easily, ppl can tell why this person is special.

You keep saying Sam was special ( next bill gates) but fail to tell me why. I asked you multiple times too , but instead you keep attacking me instead for not accepting circular "he is impressive because he is impressive" .

> But that wasn't anything specific to Sam; that's how it worked for everyone.

I just told you but you keep ignoring. Did PG mention anyone else was bill gates or Michael Jordan to his VC friends and publicly in interviews. (Ironic, given Michael Jordan is one the most impressive athletes that came from no where ). Or continuously give him leg up despite failed ventures ( loopt or whatever). I cannot think of anyone else who failed upwards like Sam because he had PG to back him with ridiculous and vacuous pumping of Sam's so called genius.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#787

Post by wheels »

apwell23 wrote: post #786
wheels wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't comparing Sam to an Olympian; I was comparing you to one. Just because you were working in a donut shop at that age doesn't mean that that's the benchmark for achievement. Some people go to the Olympics. I honestly don't know enough about Sam's achievements before then to know if he'd done impressive things. The whole "white man" thing is also a complete straw man. The other two YC-founders-turned YC CEOs of…

> I was comparing you to one. Just because you were working in a donut shop at that age doesn't mean that that's the benchmark for achievement. Some people go to the Olympics. I honestly don't know enough about Sam's achievements before then to know if he'd done impressive things. Exactly. I was comparing myself to him when i mentioned that I worked at a donut shop. At that age I ( and many others) were indistinguish…

Honestly: it's not worth my time to keep arguing with you. You've not taken any accountability for the several demonstrably false claims you've made here.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#788

Post by apwell23 »

wheels wrote: post #787
apwell23 wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was comparing you to one. Just because you were working in a donut shop at that age doesn't mean that that's the benchmark for achievement. Some people go to the Olympics. I honestly don't know enough about Sam's achievements before then to know if he'd done impressive things. Exactly. I was comparing myself to him when i mentioned that I worked at a donut shop. At that age I ( and many others) were indistinguish…

Honestly: it's not worth my time to keep arguing with you. You've not taken any accountability for the several demonstrably false claims you've made here.

I didnot make a "claim" I merely quoted PG and Sam about the age when they met. You seem to obsessed about him being in early 20s, not sure why thats relevant here or why its so important to you. You should tell that PG to go issue a correction and "take responsibility" about misquoting Sam's age if thats so important to you. I don't have creepy obsession with teenager's ages.

Oh yea you would rather run way and feel smug about some pedantic age thing than substantiate why you think same was "impressive" when he met 20s.

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#789

Post by pj_mukh »

permo-w wrote: post #777
pj_mukh wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"where the winners get space ships and the losers die," The Social Security budget is $1.4 Trillion, just the federal welfare budget is >$1Trillion (not including state budgets), and then there's medicare. Meanwhile, the NASA budget is I wish we lived in that simple of a world. But we don't.

this is a complete non-sequitur. the US social security budget does not go to one person or a small group of oligarchs

“the winners get space ships and the losers die, they'd call you crazy”

Was the original quote. I just showed that you could get rid of all rockets ever made and it would be a rounding error for any funds used to save the “losers” from dying.

How is that a non-sequitur?

Re: OpenAI to become for-profit company

#790

Post by rilien »

burnte wrote: post #595
throwup238 wrote: post #352

I’m confused by this news story and the response here. No one seems to understand OpenAI’s corporate structure or non profits at all. My understanding: OpenAI follows the same model Mozilla does. The nonprofit has owned a for-profit corporation called OpenAI Global, LLC that pays taxes on any revenue that isn’t directly in service of their mission (in a very narrow sense based on judicial precedent) since 2019 [1]. I…

The problem is that OpenAI calls itself OpenAI when it's completely sealed off, and calls itself a non-profit when, as you say, almost everything about is for profit. Basically they're whitewashing their image as an organization with noble goals when it's simply yet another profit motivated company. It's fine if that's what they are and want to be, but the lies are bothersome.

It's like North Korea calling themselves Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The name doesn't mean anything
Post reply on HN