5 ms·

Seriously, is there anyone naive enough to have swallowed any of their trips? Corporations don't have ethical compasses, much less corporations founded by VCs a

Seriously, is there anyone naive enough to have swallowed any of their trips? Corporations don't have ethical compasses, much less corporations founded by VCs aka professional salesmen.

atlasunshrugged 4y ago
Isn't that the point that it wasn't founded as a corporation, nor by Sam Altman? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#:~:text=The%20organization%20was%20founded%20in,collectively%20pledged%20US%241%20billion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#:~:text=The%20organizat....
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - uoaei 4y ago
    > There was no other end state for it. I agree, but I am curious and have a question for the less cynical: how could it have gone another way? How does one run a company that requires surviving in a harsh market that avoids these seeming inevitabilities? And in the case of the people running it, what made you think it would be different from their other ventures?
    - rhtgrg 4y ago
      ?
      - uoaei 4y ago
        Any cursory glance at their funding streams makes it pretty obvious how the underlying business incentives express themselves. This isn't an "all companies are bad" argument, it's a "duh, that's how business works" argument. If your founding team is full of VCs and they decide they need to pay top wages using other VCs' money, well, maybe you can take it from there.
    - AndrewKemendo 4y ago
      You make it an employee owned cooperative and not a for-profit company and have opt-in to the data collection with profits going to employees and data providers instead of investors.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        How do you raise the giant sums of money needed to operate for years before any profits happen?
        AndrewKemendo 4y ago
        Convince a few rich people to not expect infinite returns in order to bootstrap it.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        If your model relies on the existence of a few rich people then is it generally applicable? Or does it only work in a world where most people don't follow that model?
        AndrewKemendo 4y ago
        First of all, I don't have a model Second, this is the only practical way I can think of for individuals to start
    - ohgodplsno 4y ago
      Public research. The only reason it went this way is because it is run by people who have a singular goal in their mind: see the number in their bank account get one more zero. I'm sure Sam Altman loves AI, but ultimately, it's not him working on it, he just sees it as a way to make more money. To paraphrase someone else, don't make the mistake of anthropomorphizing VCs. An equally talented team of researchers and engineers (which, you know, we could actually pay well if the money wasn't being concentrated in these billionaires) could make ChatGPT, Bard or anything else. Hell, they could even make it something useful. This technology is too important to be left in the hands of a few.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        > The only reason it went this way OpenAI's existence doesn't stop any government funding equivalent research. > (which, you know, we could actually pay well if the money wasn't being concentrated in these billionaires) No. The government prints money and writes down rules that mean it can take money from people who've earned it. Most billionaires are paper billionaires. Their worth based on shares would not pay many bills, and it would certainly not exist once a government started seizing shares from people, as no one would buy them.
        ohgodplsno 4y ago
        >Most billionaires are paper billionaires. Watch out, this is peak bootlicker rethoric. You take loans out using your shares as collateral. Why do you think Musk is panicking about Twitter being dogshit ? His shares are on the line. Their worth based on shares, converted to cash is the exact same number. Except that by taking a loan against it, they evade taxes at the same time.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        > You take loans out using your shares as collateral. Think for a second about the context from your previous comment, which is what I'm replying to. You say if billionaires didn't exist we'd have money to pay for everything. Your latest comment makes no sense in light of this. Who is taking out these loans to pay for everything?
  - jjtheblunt 4y ago
    who matches which descriptor? (and i personally pretty much agree)
    - ohgodplsno 4y ago
      That's the great thing about VCs and sociopaths, you can swap their titles around and it still works! But, in this case, it was in the order given by the previous comment.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  "Non-profit" refers to the tax-exempt status. "Corporation" is an organizational structure. The designations do not have to overlap but sometimes do. [1] It isn't clear from the wiki page whether it was founded as a corporation or not. The content of the filings are the only way to tell. [1] https://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-nonprofit-corporation-501c3-59719.html https://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-nonprofit...
mellosouls 4y ago
I (parent commenter) may be naive but I actually believe the original intent was probably sincere; I suspect either political shenanigans, greed, gatekeeping or any number of other vices have come rushing with success and shedloads of money, and the original ethical stance was not accompanied by the significant moral courage needed to sustain purity under enormous pressure from either less principled stakeholders, or temptation and ego.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- startupsfail 4y ago
  Seriously, OpenAI is far more open than people talk here. They’ve published all the RLHF protocols, their models are open to use and they are doing more than anyone else on the alignment problem. It actually feels like all the other projects (including open source ones) seem to be there for short term fame and profits. While it is OpenAI that is playing on the side of long term alignment of AI and humans.
- uoaei 4y ago
  But intention has nothing to do with it! All of the corrupting forces you listed are foreseeable, even inevitable given a certain corporate structure and position in a market. It is simply bad business, naivete, that made them think they could realistically achieve what they wanted with a company that survives by making money. Maybe, just maybe, it's not always wise to blindly take people, in positions of power, with much to gain from your believing them, at their word...? (And if it was true naivete, I don't understand why the consensus isn't "let the company die, a better one will take its place, these people can't run a company" a la the vaunted free market principles that imbue the community of sycophants rooting for Musk et al.)
- fundad 4y ago
  I guess those billionaires didn't start a foundation for charity purposes.

Seriously, is there anyone naive enough to have swallowed any of their trips? Corporations don't have ethical compasses, much less corporations founded by VCs aka professional salesmen.

atlasunshrugged 4y ago

Isn't that the point that it wasn't founded as a corporation, nor by Sam Altman? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#:~:text=The%20organization%20was%20founded%20in,collectively%20pledged%20US%241%20billion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#:~:text=The%20organizat....

ohgodplsno 4y ago
[flagged]
- uoaei 4y ago
  > There was no other end state for it. I agree, but I am curious and have a question for the less cynical: how could it have gone another way? How does one run a company that requires surviving in a harsh market that avoids these seeming inevitabilities? And in the case of the people running it, what made you think it would be different from their other ventures?
  - rhtgrg 4y ago
    ?
    - uoaei 4y ago
      Any cursory glance at their funding streams makes it pretty obvious how the underlying business incentives express themselves. This isn't an "all companies are bad" argument, it's a "duh, that's how business works" argument. If your founding team is full of VCs and they decide they need to pay top wages using other VCs' money, well, maybe you can take it from there.
  - AndrewKemendo 4y ago
    You make it an employee owned cooperative and not a for-profit company and have opt-in to the data collection with profits going to employees and data providers instead of investors.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      How do you raise the giant sums of money needed to operate for years before any profits happen?
      - AndrewKemendo 4y ago
        Convince a few rich people to not expect infinite returns in order to bootstrap it.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        If your model relies on the existence of a few rich people then is it generally applicable? Or does it only work in a world where most people don't follow that model?
        AndrewKemendo 4y ago
        First of all, I don't have a model Second, this is the only practical way I can think of for individuals to start
  - ohgodplsno 4y ago
    Public research. The only reason it went this way is because it is run by people who have a singular goal in their mind: see the number in their bank account get one more zero. I'm sure Sam Altman loves AI, but ultimately, it's not him working on it, he just sees it as a way to make more money. To paraphrase someone else, don't make the mistake of anthropomorphizing VCs. An equally talented team of researchers and engineers (which, you know, we could actually pay well if the money wasn't being concentrated in these billionaires) could make ChatGPT, Bard or anything else. Hell, they could even make it something useful. This technology is too important to be left in the hands of a few.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      > The only reason it went this way OpenAI's existence doesn't stop any government funding equivalent research. > (which, you know, we could actually pay well if the money wasn't being concentrated in these billionaires) No. The government prints money and writes down rules that mean it can take money from people who've earned it. Most billionaires are paper billionaires. Their worth based on shares would not pay many bills, and it would certainly not exist once a government started seizing shares from people, as no one would buy them.
      - ohgodplsno 4y ago
        >Most billionaires are paper billionaires. Watch out, this is peak bootlicker rethoric. You take loans out using your shares as collateral. Why do you think Musk is panicking about Twitter being dogshit ? His shares are on the line. Their worth based on shares, converted to cash is the exact same number. Except that by taking a loan against it, they evade taxes at the same time.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        > You take loans out using your shares as collateral. Think for a second about the context from your previous comment, which is what I'm replying to. You say if billionaires didn't exist we'd have money to pay for everything. Your latest comment makes no sense in light of this. Who is taking out these loans to pay for everything?
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  who matches which descriptor? (and i personally pretty much agree)
  - ohgodplsno 4y ago
    That's the great thing about VCs and sociopaths, you can swap their titles around and it still works! But, in this case, it was in the order given by the previous comment.
IncRnd 4y ago
"Non-profit" refers to the tax-exempt status. "Corporation" is an organizational structure. The designations do not have to overlap but sometimes do. [1] It isn't clear from the wiki page whether it was founded as a corporation or not. The content of the filings are the only way to tell. [1] https://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-nonprofit-corporation-501c3-59719.html https://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-nonprofit...

mellosouls 4y ago

I (parent commenter) may be naive but I actually believe the original intent was probably sincere; I suspect either political shenanigans, greed, gatekeeping or any number of other vices have come rushing with success and shedloads of money, and the original ethical stance was not accompanied by the significant moral courage needed to sustain purity under enormous pressure from either less principled stakeholders, or temptation and ego.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
startupsfail 4y ago
Seriously, OpenAI is far more open than people talk here. They’ve published all the RLHF protocols, their models are open to use and they are doing more than anyone else on the alignment problem. It actually feels like all the other projects (including open source ones) seem to be there for short term fame and profits. While it is OpenAI that is playing on the side of long term alignment of AI and humans.
uoaei 4y ago
But intention has nothing to do with it! All of the corrupting forces you listed are foreseeable, even inevitable given a certain corporate structure and position in a market. It is simply bad business, naivete, that made them think they could realistically achieve what they wanted with a company that survives by making money. Maybe, just maybe, it's not always wise to blindly take people, in positions of power, with much to gain from your believing them, at their word...? (And if it was true naivete, I don't understand why the consensus isn't "let the company die, a better one will take its place, these people can't run a company" a la the vaunted free market principles that imbue the community of sycophants rooting for Musk et al.)
fundad 4y ago
I guess those billionaires didn't start a foundation for charity purposes.