3 ms·
High-risk investments are not rare. To argue that OpenAI can do whatever they want for whatever reason because they state that it's high-risk is not how anythi
by wvenable 3y ago
High-risk investments are not rare. To argue that OpenAI can do whatever they want for whatever reason because they state that it's high-risk is not how anything works.
Investors should rightly be concerned about things like gross negligence, active sabotage, or simple infighting. These are all current human concerns and not at all that AGI will destroy the concept of money rendering all investments pointless.
- function_seven 3y agoMost high-risk investments still come with an understanding that the recipient will have a duty to the investor, making decisions that they believe in good-faith will lead to a return on that investment on some time-frame. This one is very much an explicit, "You're giving us a donation. Don't expect a return." It's in an impossible-to-miss pink box. They can't be more clear about this. If investors are concerned about those things, then they should not give money to people who pointedly leave those things on the table. Like this one: > The Nonprofit’s principal beneficiary is humanity, not OpenAI investors. Also, Microsoft got something for their money already. They have an independent license to the tech they can run themselves and iterate on. The OpenAI board has no duty to Microsoft to get their input. MS might have believed their investment amounted to de facto control, but they're wrong.
- wvenable 3y agoI think they make it quite clear what they mean by statement. If they wish to accept donations they can freely do so but they did not. It's an investment with all the current expectations. Any investor based on that statement should expect either a return or the end of capitalism itself.