4 ms·
It means that those 'organisations' can never scale, and therefore make the titanic impacts on society they hoped to have. No investors will touch these non-pr
by anonylizard 3y ago
It means that those 'organisations' can never scale, and therefore make the titanic impacts on society they hoped to have.
No investors will touch these non-profits with a 10 foot pole now. An unaccountable board that can lead the majority of the company and investors to revolt is radioactive for investors.
It proves that the shares=votes, standard corporate structure is the only way to organize mega scale organizations.
OpenAI will keep its goals, but it'll simply accomplish nothing. It'll probably devolve into some niche lab with no resources or GPUs to do anything significant.
- BryantD 3y agoWould you say Wikipedia has had a significant impact on society?
- mschuster91 3y agoOf course it has. Wikipedia is the first (and only) truly global source of knowledge, to a depth no other encyclopedia has ever covered before - and with an unmatched capability to react to current events.
- hgomersall 3y agoRight! The Wikimedia Foundation is dead in the water, and everyone except Jimmy knows it. If only it could raise hundreds of millions in capital from investors then they could actually start delivering value and get significant market share.
- ketzo 3y agoPithy response but poor comparison -- Wikipedia's startup costs were in, what, the tens of thousands of dollars? Less? OAI is burning billions in compute/salary to create their thing, and will spend billions more before truly massive value to society could ever be wrought. I can't think of a nonprofit structure that has ever effectively allocated that much capital aside from, like, a government.
- hgomersall 3y agoThe parent criticism was that non-profits cannot scale.