2 ms·
This is something you don’t get. What happens to the for-profit arm of OpenAI is not her problem, her loyalty lies with the non-profit arm’s charter (and not ev
by TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
This is something you don’t get. What happens to the for-profit arm of OpenAI is not her problem, her loyalty lies with the non-profit arm’s charter (and not even the organization itself).
She is doing her job to uphold the mission of the organization.
- sumedh 3y ago> What happens to the for-profit arm of OpenAI is not her problem Who pays the bill for the non profit arm, wasnt that the for profit arm?
- TerrifiedMouse 3y agoThe for-profit arm was always meant to be subservient to the non-profit arm - the latter practically owns the former. The important thing for the non-profit arm is the mission, its own existence is secondary.
- sumedh 3y ago> The important thing for the non-profit arm is the mission, its own existence is secondary. So OpenAI should just shut down because the charitable donations were not enough to keep the lights on.
- TerrifiedMouse 3y agoIf they lack money they could always scale back operations. Also running the for-profit arm the way Altman did isn’t the only way. A more reasonable CEO would do what he/she can to make money without running afoul of the charter. Yes, it will be less profit - and sometimes no profit at all - but that’s the way it should be in a non-profit organization. OpenAI used to be an organization that dabbled with various AI technologies. Anyone remember their DOTA2 bot? Before Altman turned it into all about commercializing their LLM - going so far as to try to lobby congress to create laws, in the name of safety of course, to hobble any upstart competition.
- nmfisher 3y agoThis is exactly correct and so many people just don’t get it. The non-profit owns the for-profit, not the other way around. When the goals of the for-profit clash with the goals of the non-profit, the for-profit has to yield.