4 ms·

"Wacky" is an interesting way to describe "non-profit" or, in this case, "not purely profit motivated." It's not "wacky" to have goals other than the accumulat

"Wacky" is an interesting way to describe "non-profit" or, in this case, "not purely profit motivated." It's not "wacky" to have goals other than the accumulation of capital. In fact, given the purpose of OpenAI, I think it's meritorious. I'd personally prefer we just not work on AGI at all, but I'd rather a non-profit dedicated to safe AI do it than a for-profit company dedicated to returns for shareholders. > Let this be a lesson, don’t have a wacky ownership structure and wacky board when you have the (perhaps) the most valuable product in the world. I think the lesson is just the opposite: If you want to work according to your ideals, and not simply for money, you should absolutely do whatever 'wacky' thing protects that.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago
Non-profit doesn't automatically mean virtuous. For-profit doesn't automatically mean non-virtuous. There are non-wacky non-profits.
- addicted 3y ago
  and there are wacky for profits. The OP was clearly implying not being solely focused on getting the highest bid is loony and wacky. Which may be true, but let’s not pretend that’s not what they’re saying.
  - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    Awesome that you can read minds! > Let this be a lesson, don’t have a wacky ownership structure and wacky board when you have the (perhaps) the most valuable product in the world.
jerbearito 3y ago
I read their comment a few times — I don't see where they said being "non-profit" makes you "wacky".
- ivraatiems 3y ago
  ...what is it you thought they were saying? Because the "wacky structure" they refer to is the non-profit structure of the organization.
- rand846633 3y ago
  The comment definitely said that if your structure prevents from selling to the highest bidder your structure is whaky
  - aardvarkr 3y ago
    If you mean it prevents you from raising capital by selling a percent of the company then yes, that’s pretty wacky. Profitable companies can afford to be idealistic. Others that are burning billions don’t have that luxury.
- suriyaG 3y ago
  apart from the things that my sibling comments are saying. OP just said >so people put up with his foolishness. about Ilya. OP just implied, having ideals == being foolish. it is as close to calling a non-profit, wacky.
  - ivraatiems 3y ago
    It's especially ironic given that in this case, the idealists got their way.
- DoingIsLearning 3y ago
  HN has an edit function for the first hour. It is an honour based system to clarify what you edited if it goes beyond typos/grammar. Most probably GP used stronger words and then edited.
  - GreedClarifies 3y ago
    Nope. Good try though.
chimeracoder 3y ago
> Wacky" is an interesting way to describe "non-profit" or, in this case, "not purely profit motivated." > I'd personally prefer we just not work on AGI at all, but I'd rather a non-profit dedicated to safe AI do it than a for-profit company dedicated to returns for shareholders. You seem to be under the impression that OpenAI is a nonprofit. For the most part, it's not: it was founded as a non-profit, but it subsequently restructured into a for-profit company with the nonprofit owned under the same umbrella company. This is indeed an unusual corporate structure. That's likely what OP is referring to as "wacky".
- ivraatiems 3y ago
  The operations of the for-profit are subservient to those of the non-profit; the board of the non-profit controls all operations of the for-profit. They're not an "umbrella company" - while technically they are two different organizations run by the same board, one is controlled by the goals of the other. See https://openai.com/our-structure https://openai.com/our-structure.
- Intralexical 3y ago
  > it subsequently restructured into a for-profit company with the nonprofit owned under the same umbrella company. Wikipedia says the for-profit part is owned by the non-profit, not under the same umbrella company. Mozilla Foundation/Corporation does this too IIRC. It's what allows them to to pursue serious revenue streams with the for-profit part, while still steering their mission with the non-profit in charge, as long as they keep a separation in some kinds of revenue terms. EDIT after 56 minutes: Hell, even IKEA does this type of ownership structure. So it's quite cool, but probably not all that "wacky" as far as enterprises that want to be socially responsible go.
  - r7r8f73j 3y ago
    Serious revenue streams like having Google for a patron yes? I feel like the context is important here because people are trying to defend OpenAI's structure as somehow well considered and definitely not naively idealistic. Which is great and possible in theory, but in reality seems to end up with situations exactly like Firefox where the product that is some how supposed to be better/liberating/more ethical/whatever virtue is in fashion/etc. is ultimately only sustainable because of a patron who doesn't share in exemplifying that same idealism.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago

Non-profit doesn't automatically mean virtuous. For-profit doesn't automatically mean non-virtuous. There are non-wacky non-profits.

addicted 3y ago
and there are wacky for profits. The OP was clearly implying not being solely focused on getting the highest bid is loony and wacky. Which may be true, but let’s not pretend that’s not what they’re saying.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  Awesome that you can read minds! > Let this be a lesson, don’t have a wacky ownership structure and wacky board when you have the (perhaps) the most valuable product in the world.

jerbearito 3y ago

I read their comment a few times — I don't see where they said being "non-profit" makes you "wacky".

ivraatiems 3y ago
...what is it you thought they were saying? Because the "wacky structure" they refer to is the non-profit structure of the organization.
rand846633 3y ago
The comment definitely said that if your structure prevents from selling to the highest bidder your structure is whaky
- aardvarkr 3y ago
  If you mean it prevents you from raising capital by selling a percent of the company then yes, that’s pretty wacky. Profitable companies can afford to be idealistic. Others that are burning billions don’t have that luxury.
suriyaG 3y ago
apart from the things that my sibling comments are saying. OP just said >so people put up with his foolishness. about Ilya. OP just implied, having ideals == being foolish. it is as close to calling a non-profit, wacky.
- ivraatiems 3y ago
  It's especially ironic given that in this case, the idealists got their way.
DoingIsLearning 3y ago
HN has an edit function for the first hour. It is an honour based system to clarify what you edited if it goes beyond typos/grammar. Most probably GP used stronger words and then edited.
- GreedClarifies 3y ago
  Nope. Good try though.

chimeracoder 3y ago

> Wacky" is an interesting way to describe "non-profit" or, in this case, "not purely profit motivated." > I'd personally prefer we just not work on AGI at all, but I'd rather a non-profit dedicated to safe AI do it than a for-profit company dedicated to returns for shareholders. You seem to be under the impression that OpenAI is a nonprofit. For the most part, it's not: it was founded as a non-profit, but it subsequently restructured into a for-profit company with the nonprofit owned under the same umbrella company. This is indeed an unusual corporate structure. That's likely what OP is referring to as "wacky".

ivraatiems 3y ago
The operations of the for-profit are subservient to those of the non-profit; the board of the non-profit controls all operations of the for-profit. They're not an "umbrella company" - while technically they are two different organizations run by the same board, one is controlled by the goals of the other. See https://openai.com/our-structure https://openai.com/our-structure.
Intralexical 3y ago
> it subsequently restructured into a for-profit company with the nonprofit owned under the same umbrella company. Wikipedia says the for-profit part is owned by the non-profit, not under the same umbrella company. Mozilla Foundation/Corporation does this too IIRC. It's what allows them to to pursue serious revenue streams with the for-profit part, while still steering their mission with the non-profit in charge, as long as they keep a separation in some kinds of revenue terms. EDIT after 56 minutes: Hell, even IKEA does this type of ownership structure. So it's quite cool, but probably not all that "wacky" as far as enterprises that want to be socially responsible go.
- r7r8f73j 3y ago
  Serious revenue streams like having Google for a patron yes? I feel like the context is important here because people are trying to defend OpenAI's structure as somehow well considered and definitely not naively idealistic. Which is great and possible in theory, but in reality seems to end up with situations exactly like Firefox where the product that is some how supposed to be better/liberating/more ethical/whatever virtue is in fashion/etc. is ultimately only sustainable because of a patron who doesn't share in exemplifying that same idealism.