911–920 of 946 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI, Inc. Is non profit but it's subsidiary OpenAI Global, LLC. Is for profit.
what is end goal of having a for-profit subsidiary, make opanai more non-profit and make the model more open-source ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have a building that weathers many storms and only collapses after someone takes a sledgehammer to load bearing wall, is that a failure to build a proper building?
Was the building still under construction? I think your analogy is not a good one to stretch to fit this situation
The point I was trying to make is that someone destroying a well executed implementation is fundamentally different from a poorly executed implementation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It appears they have an exclusive, irrevocable license to the existing IP. They have the GPT-4 weights, and the legal right to use them however they see fit. That's the deal with the devil OpenAI made.
Whoa GPT-4 weights! Stop the presses. That is an artifact of the process. They have license to play the game but don't have the IP to make the game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you merge changes between the source trees? Keep in mind this predates basically ANY kind of source control. It would have been nearly 3x the work.
Uh? Quite wrong. SCCS was created in 1973. We're talking about over a decade later. Also primitive forking, diffing and merging could be (painfully) done even with crude tools, which did exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What exactly is the problem here? Is a non-profit expected to exclusively help impoverished communities or something? Yes. Yes and more yes. That is why, at least in the U.S., we have given non-profits exemptions from taxation. Because they are supposed to be improving society, not profiting from it.
> That is why, at least in the U.S., we have given non-profits exemptions from taxation. That's your belief . The NFL, Heritage Foundation and Scientology are all non-profits and none of them improve society; they all profit from it. (For what its' worth, I wish the law was more aligned with your worldview)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but my understanding is that the nonprofit structure eliminates most (if not all) possible shareholder suits.
As I mentioned in my comment, I'm unaware of the effect of the nonprofit status on this. But like the parent commenter mentioned I mostly was thinking of laws prohibiting destruction of shareholder value (edit: whatever that may mean considering a nonprofit). It just seems ludicrous that the board could run a company into the ground like this and just shrug "nah we're nonprofit so you can't touch us and BTW we don't…
As ludicrous as that might seem, that's pretty much the reality.
The only one that would have a cause of action in this is the non-profit itself, and for all intents and purposes, the board of said non-profit is the non-profit.
Assuming that what people claim is right and this severely damages the non-profit, then as far as the law is concerned, it’s just one of a million other failed non-profits.
The only caveat to that would be if there were any impropriety, for example, when decisions were made that weren’t following the charter and by-laws of the non-profit or if the non-profit’s coffers have been emptied.
Other than that, the law doesn’t care. In a similar way the law wouldn’t care if you light your dollar bills on fire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The board of openai ended up making a decision that destroyed billions of dollars worth of brand value and good will Maybe I’m special or something, but nothing changed to me. I always wonder why people suddenly lose “trust” in a brand, as if it was a concrete of internal relationships or something. Everyone knows that “corporate” is probably a snakepit. When it comes out to public, it’s not a sign of anything, it ju…
> I always wonder why people suddenly lose “trust” in a brand, as if it was a concrete of internal relationships Brand is just shorthand for trust in their future, managed by a credible team. I.e. relationships . A lot of OpenAI’s reputation is/was Sam Altman’s reputation. Altman has proven himself to be exceptional, part of which is (of course) being able to be seen as exceptional. Just the latter has tremendous rel…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Altman is an interesting character in all of this. As far as i can tell, he has never done anything impressive, in technology or business. Got into Stanford, but dropped out, founded a startup in 2005 which threw easy money at a boring problem and after seven years, sold for a third more than it raised. Got hired into YC after it was already well-established, and then rapidly put in charge of it. I have no knowledge…
Altman has convinced PG that he's a pretty smart cookie and that alone would explain a lot of the red carpet treatment he's received. PG is pretty good at spotting talent. http://www.paulgraham.com/5founders.html Note the date on that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Money can and does do all of those things. Through regulatory capture, rent seeking, even just good old hiring goons. The government itself uses money to do those things. Police don't work for free, prisons aren't built for free, guns aren't free. The government can be thought of as having unfathomable amounts of money. The assets of a country includes the entire country (less anyone with enough money to defend it).…
> Through regulatory capture, rent seeking, even just good old hiring goons. Regulatory capture is using the state's power. The state is the one with the power. Rent seeking is the same. Hiring goons is illegal. If you're willing to include illegal things then all bets are off. But from your list of non-illegal things, 100% of them are the state using its power to wrong ends. > The government itself uses money to do…
The state only has the right to do something because it says it does. It can only say it does because it can enforce it in it's terrority. It can only enforce in its territory because it has people who will do said enforcement (or robots hypothetically). The people will only enforce because the government sacrifices some of its resources to them (or sacrifices resources to build bots). Even slaves need food, and people treated well enough to control them. Power doesn't exist with resources, the very measure of a state is the amount of resources it controls.
Money is for resources.
I am not arguing that anyone currently has the resources of a nation-state, it's hard to do when a state can pool a few thousand square miles of peoples money to it. I am arguing it money that makes a state powerful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He gotta be insane? I guess what he is trying to say is that those who want to selfhost open AIs are worse than Nazis? E.g. Llama? What is up with these people and pushing for corporate overlord only AIs. The OpenAI folks seem to be hallucinating to rationalize why the "Open" is rather closed. Organizations can't pretend to believe nonsense. They will end up believing it.
He's trying to say that AI-non-alignment would be a greater threat to humanity than having Nazis take over the world. It's perfectly clear.
He is dehumanizing programmers that can stop their sole reign on the AI throne, by labeling them as Nazis. Especially FOSS AI which by definition can't be "aligned" to his interests.