6 ms·

I am not claiming how right or wrong the final outcome would be, but owning the technology with a clear "for-profit" objective is definitely a better structure

I am not claiming how right or wrong the final outcome would be, but owning the technology with a clear "for-profit" objective is definitely a better structure for Microsoft and for Sam Altman as well (considering, his plans for the future). I have no opinion on AI risk. I just think that a super valuable technology under a non-profit objective was simply an untenable structure, regardless of potential threats.

9dev 3y ago
This is precisely the problem OpenAI aimed to solve: This technology cannot be treated independently of the potential risks involved. I agree that this solution seems beneficial for both Microsoft and Sam Altman, but it reflects poorly on society if we simply accept this version of the story without criticism.
- disgruntledphd2 3y ago
  Yeah but this was caused by the OpenAI board when they fired him. I mean, what did they think was going to happen? Seems like a textbook case of letting the best be the enemy of the good.
  - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
    Perhaps this is why they fired him. Although IMO MS has consistently been a technological tarpit. Whatever AI comes out of this arrangement will be a thin shadow of what it might have been.
    - nopromisessir 3y ago
      MSFT is a technological tarpit? Mate... Just because you don't bat perfect doesn't make you a tarpit. MSFT is a technological powerhouse. They have absolutely killed it since they were founded. They have defined personal computing for multiple generations and more or less made the word 'software' something spoken occasionally at kitchen tables vs people saying 'soft-what?' Definitely not a tarpit. You are throwing out whole villages of babies because of some various nasty bathwater over the years. The picture is bigger. So much crucial tech from MSFT. Remains true today.
      - gremlinunderway 3y ago
        "Innovation" through anti-trust isn't "killing it".
        nopromisessir 3y ago
        Uhhh they won that appeal BTW.. If you are referring to the trouble with Janet Reno. Gates keeps repeating. Noone hears it.
    - cyanydeez 3y ago
      ClippyAI coming2025: I see you're trying to invade a third world nation, can I help you with that?
- avidphantasm 3y ago
  > This is precisely the problem OpenAI aimed to solve: This technology cannot be treated independently of the potential risks involved. I’ve always thought that what OpenAI was purporting to do—-“protect” humanity from bad things that AI could do to it—-was a fool’s errand under a Capitalist system, what with the coercive law of competition and all.
slg 3y ago
It isn't fear of a sentient AI that enslaves humanity that makes me disappointed with for-profit companies getting a stronger grip on this tech. It is the fear that a greater portion of the value of this technology will go to the stockholders of said companies rather than potentially be shared among a larger percentage of society. Not that I had that much faith in OpenAI, but in general the shift from non-profit to for-profit is a win for the few over the many.
- xapata 3y ago
  I'm a Microsoft shareholder. So is basically everyone else who invests in broad index funds, even if indirectly, through a pension fund. That's "many" enough for me.
  - belter 3y ago
    Can I direct my fury to you, for having to pay extra for my hardware when using a PC to install Linux? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows Or being forced to use Teams and Azure, due to my company CEO getting the licenses for free out of his Excel spend? :-))
    - xapata 3y ago
      Feel free. I can be your pseudonymous villain.
      - belter 3y ago
        Much appreciated. I will conserve energy, and reserve my next outburst until a future Windows Update.
        HenryBemis 3y ago
        > ..reserve my next outburst until a.. You'll just waste your time :) Look, it's Microsoft's right to put any/all effort to making more money with their various practices. It is our right to buy a Win10 Pro license for X amount of USD, then bolt down the ** out of it with the myriad of privacy tools to protect ourselves and have a "better Win7 Pro OS". MS has always and will always try to play the game of getting more control, making more money, collecting more telemetry, do clean and dirty things until get caught. Welcome to the human condition. MS employees are humans. MS shareholders are also humans. As for Windows Update, I don't think I've updated the core version at all since I installed it, and I am using WuMgr and WAU Manager (both portables) for very selective security updates. It's a game. If you are a former sys-admin or a technical person, then you avoid their traps. If you are not, then the machine will chew your data, just like Google Analytics, AdMod, and so many others do. Side-note: never update apps when they work 'alright', chances are you will regret it.
calf 3y ago
This super-valuable technology would not have existed precisely because of this unstable (metastable) structure. Microsoft or Google did not create ChatGPT because internally there would have been too many rules, too many cooks, red tape, etc., to do such a bold--and incautionary--thing as to use the entirety of the Internet as the training set, copyright law be damned and all. The crazy structure is what allowed the machine of unprecedented scale to be created, and now the structure has to implode.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- cutemonster 3y ago
  That doesn't seem to require a non profit owning a for profit though. Just a "normal" startup could have worked too (but apparently not big corp) Edit: Hmm sibling comment says sth else, I wonder if that makes sense
  - calf 3y ago
    A Normal startup may not appeal to academics who aren't in it for the money but who want to pioneer AGI research.
croes 3y ago
Better for MS and Altman, that's exactly. AI should benefit mankind, not corporate profit.
- donny2018 3y ago
  Then “mankind” should be paying for research and servers, shouldn’t it?
  - layer8 3y ago
    Indeed it should.
  - elzbardico 3y ago
    We are. QE and Covid funny money devalued the dollar in exact proportion it gave so much money that even stock buy-backs got old and they started investing in stuff to get rid of those pesky humans and their insolent asking of salaries.
  - croes 3y ago
    Mankind already pays for education and infrastructure. Did OpenAI and others pay for the training data from Stack Overflow, Twitter, Reddit, Github etc. Or any other source produced by mankind?
  - cyanydeez 3y ago
    ... that's how government works. name a utopian fiction that has corporations as benefactors to humanity
    - donny2018 3y ago
      I mean, we already benefit plenty in various ways from corporations like Google. AI is just another product by another corporation. If I get to benefit from the technology while the company that offers it also makes profit, that’s fine, I think? There wasn’t publicly available AI until someone decided to sell it.
bookaway 3y ago
This was essentially already in the cards as a possible outcome when Microsoft made it's big investment in OpenAI, so in my view it was a reasonable outcome at this juncture as well. For Microsoft, it's just Nokia in reverse. If you looked at sama's actions and not his words, he seems intent on maximizing his power, control and prestige (new yorker profile, press blitzes, making a constant effort to rub shoulders with politicians/power players, worldcoin etc). I think getting in bed with Microsoft with the early investment would have allowed sama to entertain the possibility that he could succeed Satya at Microsoft some time in the distant future; that is, in the event that OpenAI never became as big or bigger than Microsoft (his preferred goal presumably) -- and everything else went mostly right for him. After all, he's always going on about how much money is needed for AGI. He wanted more direct access to the money. Now he has it. Ultimately, this shows how little sama cared for the OpenAI charter to begin with, specifically the part about benefiting all humanity and preventing an unduly concentration of power. He didn’t start his own separate company because the talent was at OpenAI. He wanted to poach the talent, not obey the charter. Peter Hintjens (ZeroMQ, RIP) wrote a book called "The Psychopath Code", where he posits that psychopaths are attracted to jobs with access to vulnerable people [0]. Selfless talented idealists who do not chase status and prestige can be vulnerable to manipulation. Perhaps that's why Musk pulled out of OpenAI, him and sama were able to recognize the narcissist in each other and put their guard up accordingly. As Altman says, "Elon desperately wants the world to be saved. But only if he can be the one to save it.”[1] Perhaps this apply to him as well. Amusingly, someone recently posted an old tweet by pg: "The most surprising thing I've learned from being involved with nonprofits is that they are a magnet for sociopaths."[1] As others in the thread noted, if true, it's up for debate whether this applies more to sama or Ilya. Time will tell I guess. It'll also be interesting to see what assurances were given to sama et al about being exempt from Microsoft's internal red tape. Prior to this, Microsoft had at least a little plausible deniability if OpenAI was ever embroiled in controversy regarding its products. They won't have that luxury with sama's team in-house anymore. [0] https://hintjens.gitbooks.io/psychopathcode/content/chapter8.html https://hintjens.gitbooks.io/psychopathcode/content/chapter8... [1] https://archive.is/uUG7H#selection-2071.78-2071.166 https://archive.is/uUG7H#selection-2071.78-2071.166 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38339379 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38339379

9dev 3y ago

This is precisely the problem OpenAI aimed to solve: This technology cannot be treated independently of the potential risks involved. I agree that this solution seems beneficial for both Microsoft and Sam Altman, but it reflects poorly on society if we simply accept this version of the story without criticism.

disgruntledphd2 3y ago
Yeah but this was caused by the OpenAI board when they fired him. I mean, what did they think was going to happen? Seems like a textbook case of letting the best be the enemy of the good.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  Perhaps this is why they fired him. Although IMO MS has consistently been a technological tarpit. Whatever AI comes out of this arrangement will be a thin shadow of what it might have been.
  - nopromisessir 3y ago
    MSFT is a technological tarpit? Mate... Just because you don't bat perfect doesn't make you a tarpit. MSFT is a technological powerhouse. They have absolutely killed it since they were founded. They have defined personal computing for multiple generations and more or less made the word 'software' something spoken occasionally at kitchen tables vs people saying 'soft-what?' Definitely not a tarpit. You are throwing out whole villages of babies because of some various nasty bathwater over the years. The picture is bigger. So much crucial tech from MSFT. Remains true today.
    - gremlinunderway 3y ago
      "Innovation" through anti-trust isn't "killing it".
      - nopromisessir 3y ago
        Uhhh they won that appeal BTW.. If you are referring to the trouble with Janet Reno. Gates keeps repeating. Noone hears it.
  - cyanydeez 3y ago
    ClippyAI coming2025: I see you're trying to invade a third world nation, can I help you with that?
avidphantasm 3y ago
> This is precisely the problem OpenAI aimed to solve: This technology cannot be treated independently of the potential risks involved. I’ve always thought that what OpenAI was purporting to do—-“protect” humanity from bad things that AI could do to it—-was a fool’s errand under a Capitalist system, what with the coercive law of competition and all.

slg 3y ago

It isn't fear of a sentient AI that enslaves humanity that makes me disappointed with for-profit companies getting a stronger grip on this tech. It is the fear that a greater portion of the value of this technology will go to the stockholders of said companies rather than potentially be shared among a larger percentage of society. Not that I had that much faith in OpenAI, but in general the shift from non-profit to for-profit is a win for the few over the many.

xapata 3y ago
I'm a Microsoft shareholder. So is basically everyone else who invests in broad index funds, even if indirectly, through a pension fund. That's "many" enough for me.
- belter 3y ago
  Can I direct my fury to you, for having to pay extra for my hardware when using a PC to install Linux? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows Or being forced to use Teams and Azure, due to my company CEO getting the licenses for free out of his Excel spend? :-))
  - xapata 3y ago
    Feel free. I can be your pseudonymous villain.
    - belter 3y ago
      Much appreciated. I will conserve energy, and reserve my next outburst until a future Windows Update.
      - HenryBemis 3y ago
        > ..reserve my next outburst until a.. You'll just waste your time :) Look, it's Microsoft's right to put any/all effort to making more money with their various practices. It is our right to buy a Win10 Pro license for X amount of USD, then bolt down the ** out of it with the myriad of privacy tools to protect ourselves and have a "better Win7 Pro OS". MS has always and will always try to play the game of getting more control, making more money, collecting more telemetry, do clean and dirty things until get caught. Welcome to the human condition. MS employees are humans. MS shareholders are also humans. As for Windows Update, I don't think I've updated the core version at all since I installed it, and I am using WuMgr and WAU Manager (both portables) for very selective security updates. It's a game. If you are a former sys-admin or a technical person, then you avoid their traps. If you are not, then the machine will chew your data, just like Google Analytics, AdMod, and so many others do. Side-note: never update apps when they work 'alright', chances are you will regret it.

calf 3y ago

This super-valuable technology would not have existed precisely because of this unstable (metastable) structure. Microsoft or Google did not create ChatGPT because internally there would have been too many rules, too many cooks, red tape, etc., to do such a bold--and incautionary--thing as to use the entirety of the Internet as the training set, copyright law be damned and all. The crazy structure is what allowed the machine of unprecedented scale to be created, and now the structure has to implode.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cutemonster 3y ago
That doesn't seem to require a non profit owning a for profit though. Just a "normal" startup could have worked too (but apparently not big corp) Edit: Hmm sibling comment says sth else, I wonder if that makes sense
- calf 3y ago
  A Normal startup may not appeal to academics who aren't in it for the money but who want to pioneer AGI research.

croes 3y ago

Better for MS and Altman, that's exactly. AI should benefit mankind, not corporate profit.

donny2018 3y ago
Then “mankind” should be paying for research and servers, shouldn’t it?
- layer8 3y ago
  Indeed it should.
- elzbardico 3y ago
  We are. QE and Covid funny money devalued the dollar in exact proportion it gave so much money that even stock buy-backs got old and they started investing in stuff to get rid of those pesky humans and their insolent asking of salaries.
- croes 3y ago
  Mankind already pays for education and infrastructure. Did OpenAI and others pay for the training data from Stack Overflow, Twitter, Reddit, Github etc. Or any other source produced by mankind?
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  ... that's how government works. name a utopian fiction that has corporations as benefactors to humanity
  - donny2018 3y ago
    I mean, we already benefit plenty in various ways from corporations like Google. AI is just another product by another corporation. If I get to benefit from the technology while the company that offers it also makes profit, that’s fine, I think? There wasn’t publicly available AI until someone decided to sell it.

bookaway 3y ago

This was essentially already in the cards as a possible outcome when Microsoft made it's big investment in OpenAI, so in my view it was a reasonable outcome at this juncture as well. For Microsoft, it's just Nokia in reverse. If you looked at sama's actions and not his words, he seems intent on maximizing his power, control and prestige (new yorker profile, press blitzes, making a constant effort to rub shoulders with politicians/power players, worldcoin etc). I think getting in bed with Microsoft with the early investment would have allowed sama to entertain the possibility that he could succeed Satya at Microsoft some time in the distant future; that is, in the event that OpenAI never became as big or bigger than Microsoft (his preferred goal presumably) -- and everything else went mostly right for him. After all, he's always going on about how much money is needed for AGI. He wanted more direct access to the money. Now he has it. Ultimately, this shows how little sama cared for the OpenAI charter to begin with, specifically the part about benefiting all humanity and preventing an unduly concentration of power. He didn’t start his own separate company because the talent was at OpenAI. He wanted to poach the talent, not obey the charter. Peter Hintjens (ZeroMQ, RIP) wrote a book called "The Psychopath Code", where he posits that psychopaths are attracted to jobs with access to vulnerable people [0]. Selfless talented idealists who do not chase status and prestige can be vulnerable to manipulation. Perhaps that's why Musk pulled out of OpenAI, him and sama were able to recognize the narcissist in each other and put their guard up accordingly. As Altman says, "Elon desperately wants the world to be saved. But only if he can be the one to save it.”[1] Perhaps this apply to him as well. Amusingly, someone recently posted an old tweet by pg: "The most surprising thing I've learned from being involved with nonprofits is that they are a magnet for sociopaths."[1] As others in the thread noted, if true, it's up for debate whether this applies more to sama or Ilya. Time will tell I guess. It'll also be interesting to see what assurances were given to sama et al about being exempt from Microsoft's internal red tape. Prior to this, Microsoft had at least a little plausible deniability if OpenAI was ever embroiled in controversy regarding its products. They won't have that luxury with sama's team in-house anymore. [0] https://hintjens.gitbooks.io/psychopathcode/content/chapter8.html https://hintjens.gitbooks.io/psychopathcode/content/chapter8... [1] https://archive.is/uUG7H#selection-2071.78-2071.166 https://archive.is/uUG7H#selection-2071.78-2071.166 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38339379 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38339379