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

Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 339 posts

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#81

Post by whamlastxmas »

gmerc wrote: post #34
keiferski wrote: post #9

Maybe I’m missing it in this article or elsewhere on the website, but how exactly is OpenAI’s vision of making AGI going to “benefit humanity as as a whole”? I’m not asking to be snarky or imply any hidden meaning…I just don’t see how they plan on getting from A to B. From this recent press release the answer seems to be: make ChatGPT really good and offer it for free to people to use. Which is a reasonable answer, I…

Well The Information reports that AGi really just means 100B profit for Microsoft and friends. So…

I’m pretty sure the “for profit cap” for Microsoft is something like a trillion dollars in return. 100x return cap at $10 billion invested. It basically prevents Microsoft from becoming a world super power with a military and nuclear weapons but not much else, especially considering they will reinvest a lot of their money for even more returns over time

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#82

Post by dralley »

tmpz22 wrote: post #76
taneq wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has a price, is this meant to be shocking? I mean, I’m disappointed… but I’d have been far more surprised if they’d stood fast with the philanthropic mission once world-changing money was on the table.

If you sell out humanity for a Gulf Stream 5 private jet when you already have a Gulf Stream 4 it’s not deserving of empathy. “Somebody please think of the investors they only have 500 years of generational wealth”

https://youtu.be/zUshGP2UJEo

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#83

Post by Shawnecy »

taneq wrote: post #67
Havoc wrote: post #35

The whole thing is a paper thin farce. Strong principled stance until the valuations got big (helped in no small measure by the principled stance)…and then backtracked it when everyone saw the riches there for the taking with a little let’s call it reframing

Everyone has a price, is this meant to be shocking? I mean, I’m disappointed… but I’d have been far more surprised if they’d stood fast with the philanthropic mission once world-changing money was on the table.

> Everyone has a price,

Speak for yourself.

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#85

Post by rvz »

seydor wrote: post #59

> the mission of ensuring artificial general intelligence (AGI)1 benefits all of humanity Why should we trust openAI for this more than e.g. Google or FB

Sam said to not even trust him or OpenAI. [0]

But at this point, you should not even trust him at his own word not to trust him on that.

[0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY1VK8oHj5s]

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#86

Post by gary_0 »

corry wrote: post #70
rasengan wrote: post #11

While there are issues that Mr. Musk must address, I don’t think this is one of them. Demonizing someone who helped you is an awful thing to do. If he gave 1/3 of the initial funding, he helped a lot.

Whatever other zaniness is going on with Musk/Sam/etc, I can't escape the feeling that if I had donated a lot of money to a non-profit, and then a few years later that non-profit said "SURPRISE, WE'RE NOW FOR PROFIT AND MAKING INVESTORS RICH but you're not an investor, you're a donor, so thank-you-and-goodbye"... ya, I'd feel miffed too. If we're a for-profit company with investors and returns etc... then those initi…

I believe they offered Elon shares in return for the initial donation, and he turned them down because he didn't want a few billion worth of OpenAI, he wanted total executive control.

But we're all kind of arguing over which demon is poking the other the hardest with their pitchfork, here.

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#88

Post by whamlastxmas »

evanevan wrote: post #43

The important bit (which seems unclear from this article), is the exact relationship between the for-profit and the not for profit? Before, profits were capped, with remainder going to the non-profit to distribute benefits equally across the world in event of agi / massive economic progress from agi. Which was nice, as at least on paper, a plan for an “exit to humanity”. This reads to me like the new structure might…

I didn’t consider that this might be their sly way to remove the 100x cap on returns. Lame.

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#89

Post by whamlastxmas »

vessenes wrote: post #72

The real news here is two-fold: new governance/recap of the for-profit, and operational shrink at the 501c3. As people here intuit, I think this makes the PBC the ‘head’ functionally. That said, I would guess that the charity will be one of the wealthiest charities in the world in short order. I am certain that the strong recommendation from advisory is to have separate, independent boards. Especially with their publ…

I would guess they’re going to put as many expenses as possible on the nonprofit. For example, all the compute used for free tiers of ChatGPT will be charged to the nonprofit despite being a massive benefit to the for-profit. They may even charge the training costs, which will be in the billions, to the nonprofit as well

Re: Why OpenAI's Structure Must Evolve to Advance Our Mission

#90

Post by nicce »

jefftk wrote: post #56
paxys wrote: post #53

I don't understand why they are spending so much time and effort trying to put a positive spin on this whole for-profit thing. No one is buying it. We all know what's going on. Just say "we want to make lots of money" and move on with your lives.

"We are turning our non profit into a for profit because we want to make money" isn't legal. To make this transition in a way that maximizes how much money they can make while minimizing what they lose to lawsuits they need to explain what they're doing in a positive way.

If everyone sees it through, does anything else that direct evidence of actions prove otherwise? Explaining just wastes everyone's time.
Post reply on HN