5 ms·

At the risk of getting blasted, I keep seeing all these people talking about how it's great OpenAI is being steered back to a research organization. How does on

At the risk of getting blasted, I keep seeing all these people talking about how it's great OpenAI is being steered back to a research organization. How does one expect research to make money if not being beholden to a product? Forget whatever your immediate reaction to that word is. I can already hear the "who needs another SV overhyped product" group, and your ignoring the realities that people don't pay so you can sit around thinking in industry unless your thinking can generate business value. You can not like that, but it's the system we exist in. So let me frame it another way, how does research expect to be supported if it's not providing material value? Research doesn't exist in a vacuum, if you don't want to be in industry you don't have to, we have academia for that. I'm cool with OpenAI becoming more like Google brain, but then its Microsoft calling the shots. Except wait the company structure is weird, so they're not really and after seeing how Ilya handled this I don't expect him to be able to stomach that relationship long term. I'm not bullish on OpenAI right now.

crop_rotation 3y ago
OpenAI exists only due to massive cash injections from MSFT (and initially from Musk). Saying that they shouldn't have done the MSFT deal is like saying they shouldn't have started the thing.
- cco 3y ago
  Sorta yes and no. Huge capital injections became a necessity _after_ the release of ChatGPT. Pre-ChatGPT capital costs were much lower for OpenAI, the popularity of their chat bot (100 WAU apparently) created an existential crisis for capital. Before that, as a pure research organization, capital requirements were much smaller and (probably) could have chugged along without a player like MSFT, or at least a much lighter partnership.
  - crop_rotation 3y ago
    Training GPT3 required massive amount of compute, and not to mention paying top salary for top talent. Billions were injected even before chatgpt was anywhere near.
    - cco 3y ago
      Not denying it took a lot of money, but the scales are different. I think they've raised $14b or so and all but 1b of that was in the last 10 months
sudosysgen 3y ago
There is a difference between the product being a way to fund the research and the direction being driven by the product. If OpenAI ends up like a Google Brain, that doesn't mean Microsoft calls the shots, because Microsoft doesn't own any of the IP or researchers. Microsoft just has a a license to something that is almost certainly contingent on funding, and as long as the research is good, others will be happy to take their place.

crop_rotation 3y ago

OpenAI exists only due to massive cash injections from MSFT (and initially from Musk). Saying that they shouldn't have done the MSFT deal is like saying they shouldn't have started the thing.

cco 3y ago
Sorta yes and no. Huge capital injections became a necessity _after_ the release of ChatGPT. Pre-ChatGPT capital costs were much lower for OpenAI, the popularity of their chat bot (100 WAU apparently) created an existential crisis for capital. Before that, as a pure research organization, capital requirements were much smaller and (probably) could have chugged along without a player like MSFT, or at least a much lighter partnership.
- crop_rotation 3y ago
  Training GPT3 required massive amount of compute, and not to mention paying top salary for top talent. Billions were injected even before chatgpt was anywhere near.
  - cco 3y ago
    Not denying it took a lot of money, but the scales are different. I think they've raised $14b or so and all but 1b of that was in the last 10 months

sudosysgen 3y ago

There is a difference between the product being a way to fund the research and the direction being driven by the product. If OpenAI ends up like a Google Brain, that doesn't mean Microsoft calls the shots, because Microsoft doesn't own any of the IP or researchers. Microsoft just has a a license to something that is almost certainly contingent on funding, and as long as the research is good, others will be happy to take their place.