4 ms·

This might sound naive, but wasn't the founding principle behind OpenAI that it should prevent powers around AI being concentrated in the hands of nations or bi

This might sound naive, but wasn't the founding principle behind OpenAI that it should prevent powers around AI being concentrated in the hands of nations or big companies? I really hope OpenAI won't get acquired.

whywhywhywhy 4y ago
It's "Open" in name only so the power is already concentrated.
tluyben2 4y ago
It was but isn't anymore. It's just a commercial company now as far as it appears from the outside. I too had the same hope, but it seems that it went out the window a while ago.
otabdeveloper4 4y ago
The founding principle was to have a thin veil of "academic research" around their work so they could ignore intellectual property laws while they bootstrap.
- cudgy 4y ago
  Bingo. This does not bode well for their future which will be full of legal costs and result in content creators removing their content from publicly available methods that can easily be scraped by these data aggregators.
achow 4y ago
Sam Altman addresses that when he was asked that question in 'How I Built This' Podcast. Essentially: OpenAI did not realize the massive scale they needed for them to be successful. When they realized this, they could not raise any funding as 'non-profit'. They asked govt, who did not want to fund it, and other sources, at the end they did not have any other recourse. Sam Altaman says: 90% of funding was needed for compute power, but also was needed for things like buying dataset and then to pay employee so that they can compete with likes of Google to retain them. If they would not have done this, then very soon they would have become irreverent. So to retain the earlier intent (for greater good) they put in bunch of 'safety features' around funding - Ex. 'Profit Cap' - investors would get only certain amount of profit and after that the profit would be distributed to the world (in some way). Similarly, there were few other 'safety feature he talked about. The relevant portion starts at 32:39 mark in the following podcast: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3oOX1QHLPw9uvLL5LmBk28?si=sEhqhTriTCSCgMbuyeUgnQ https://open.spotify.com/episode/3oOX1QHLPw9uvLL5LmBk28?si=s...
- transcriptase 4y ago
  A paltry 100x cap on profit. Sure to dissuade any savvy investor and ensure that the public benefits first and foremost.

whywhywhywhy 4y ago

It's "Open" in name only so the power is already concentrated.

tluyben2 4y ago

It was but isn't anymore. It's just a commercial company now as far as it appears from the outside. I too had the same hope, but it seems that it went out the window a while ago.

otabdeveloper4 4y ago

The founding principle was to have a thin veil of "academic research" around their work so they could ignore intellectual property laws while they bootstrap.

cudgy 4y ago
Bingo. This does not bode well for their future which will be full of legal costs and result in content creators removing their content from publicly available methods that can easily be scraped by these data aggregators.

achow 4y ago

Sam Altman addresses that when he was asked that question in 'How I Built This' Podcast. Essentially: OpenAI did not realize the massive scale they needed for them to be successful. When they realized this, they could not raise any funding as 'non-profit'. They asked govt, who did not want to fund it, and other sources, at the end they did not have any other recourse. Sam Altaman says: 90% of funding was needed for compute power, but also was needed for things like buying dataset and then to pay employee so that they can compete with likes of Google to retain them. If they would not have done this, then very soon they would have become irreverent. So to retain the earlier intent (for greater good) they put in bunch of 'safety features' around funding - Ex. 'Profit Cap' - investors would get only certain amount of profit and after that the profit would be distributed to the world (in some way). Similarly, there were few other 'safety feature he talked about. The relevant portion starts at 32:39 mark in the following podcast: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3oOX1QHLPw9uvLL5LmBk28?si=sEhqhTriTCSCgMbuyeUgnQ https://open.spotify.com/episode/3oOX1QHLPw9uvLL5LmBk28?si=s...

transcriptase 4y ago
A paltry 100x cap on profit. Sure to dissuade any savvy investor and ensure that the public benefits first and foremost.