5 ms·
Sam didn't take equity in OpenAi so I don't see a personal ulterior profit motive as being a big likelihood. We could just wait to find out instead of speculati
by dmix 3y ago
Sam didn't take equity in OpenAi so I don't see a personal ulterior profit motive as being a big likelihood. We could just wait to find out instead of speculating...
- marvin 3y agoCEO of the first company to own the «machine that’s better than all humans at most economically valuable work» is far rarer than getting rich.
- jeffwask 3y agoHe's already set for life rich
- ljm 3y agoPlus, he succeeded in making HN the most boring forum ever. 8 out of 10 posts are about LLMs.
- oldgradstudent 3y agoThe other two are written by LLMs.
- voisin 3y ago[flagged]
- cpeth 3y agoIn terms of impact, LLMs might be the biggest leap forward in computing history, surpassing the internet and mobile computing. And we are just at the dawn of it. Even if not full AGI, computers can now understand humans and reason. The excitement is justified.
- MrVandemar 3y agoNah. LLM's are hype-machines capable of writing their own hype. Q: What's the difference between a car salesman and an LLM? A: The car salesman knows they're lying to you.
- MVissers 3y agoWho says the LLM’s don’t know? Testing with GPT-4 showed that they were clearly capable of knowingly lying.
- nativeit 3y agoThis is all devolving into layers of semantics, but, “…capable of knowingly lying,” is not the same as “knows when it’s lying,” and I think the latter is far more problematic.
- SamPatt 3y agoNonsense. I was a semi-technical writer who went from only making static websites to building fully interactive Javascript apps in a few weeks when I first got ChatGPT. I enjoyed it so much I'm now switching careers into software development. GPT-4 is the best tutor and troubleshooter I've ever had. If it's not useful to you then I'm guessing you're either using it wrong or you're never trying anything new / challenging.
- dilDDoS 3y ago> If it's not useful to you then I'm guessing you're either using it wrong or you're never trying anything new / challenging. That’s a bold statement coming from someone with (respectfully) not very much experience with programming. I’ve tried using GPT-4 for my work that involves firmware engineering, as well as some design questions regarding backend web services in Go, and it was pretty unhelpful in both cases (and at times dangerous in memory constrained environments). That being said, I’m not willing to write it off completely. I’m sure it’s useful for some like yourself and not useful for others like me. But ultimately the world of programming extends way beyond JavaScript apps. Especially when it comes to things that are new and challenging.
- voisin 3y agoIs he? Loopy only sold for $40m and then he managed YC and then OpenAI on a salary? Where are the riches from?
- dragonwriter 3y agohttps://www.thestreet.com/investors/sam-altman-net-worth-how-does-he-make-money https://www.thestreet.com/investors/sam-altman-net-worth-how...
- worldsayshi 3y agoThere's 'set for life' rich and then there's 'able to start a space company with full control' rich.
- jeffwask 3y agoI don't understand that mental illness. If I hit low 8 figures, I pack it in and jump off the hamster wheel.
- devin 3y agoExcept the machine isn't.
- nyolfen 3y agoi would urge you to compare the current state of this question to appx one year ago
- ben_w 3y agoIn this scenario, the question is not what exists today, but what the CEO thinks will exist before they stop being CEO.
- jfengel 3y agoI'd say it is. Not because the machine is so great but because most people suck. It was described as a "bullshit generator" in a post earlier today. I think that's accurate. I just also think it's an apt description of most people as well. It can replace a lot of jobs... and then we can turn it off, for a net benefit.
- civilized 3y agoThis sort of comment has become a cliché that needs to be answered. Most people are not good at most things, yes. They're consumers of those things, not producers. For producers there is a much higher standard, one that the latest AI models don't come anywhere close to meeting. If you think they do, feel free to go buy options and bet on the world being taken over by GPUs.
- cosmojg 3y ago> If you think they do, feel free to go buy options and bet on the world being taken over by GPUs. This assumes too much. GPUs may not hold the throne for long, especially given the amount of money being thrown at ASICs and other special-purpose ICs. Besides, as with the Internet, it's likely that AI adoption will benefit industries in an unpredictable manner, leaving little alpha for direct bets like you're suggesting.
- 3y ago
- lucubratory 3y agoYeah, if you believe in the AI stuff (which I think everyone at OpenAI does, not Microsoft though) there is a huge amount of power in these positions. Much greater power in the future than any amount of wealth could grant you.
- themeiguoren 3y agoBut if you want that, you need actual control. A voting vs non voting shares split.
- jliptzin 3y agoThat's no fun though
- dustingetz 3y agoopenai (the brand) has complex corporate structure with split for profit non profit entities and afaik the details are private. It would appear that the statement “Sam didn’t take equity in OAI” has been PR engineered based on technicalities related to this shadow structure.
- jppope 3y agoI would suspect this as well...
- objektif 3y agoWhat do you mean did not take equity? As a CEO he did not get equity comp?
- WanderPanda 3y agoIt was supposed to be a non-profit
- wahnfrieden 3y agois that even certain, or is that his line to mean that one of his holding companies or investment firms he has a stake in holds openai equity but not him as an individual
- gremlinunderway 3y ago[flagged]