6 ms·

OpenAI Inc.'s mission in their filings: "OpenAIs goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconst

OpenAI Inc.'s mission in their filings: "OpenAIs goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. We think that artificial intelligence technology will help shape the 21st century, and we want to help the world build safe AI technology and ensure that AI's benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible. Were trying to build AI as part of a larger community, and we want to openly share our plans and capabilities along the way."

rvba 3y ago
Most employees of any organization dont give a fuck about the vision or mission (often they dont even know it) - and are there just for the money.
- j_maffe 3y ago
  Doesn't mean we shouldn't hold an organization accountable for their publicized mission statement. Especially its board and directors.
- DoughnutHole 3y ago
  Not so true working for an organisation that is ostensibly a non-profit. People working for a non-profit are generally taking a significant hit to their earning's compared to doing similar work in a for-profit, outside of the top management of huge global charities. The issue here is that OpenAI, Inc (officially and legally a non-profit) has spun up a subsidiary OpenAI Global, LLC (for-profit). OpenAI Global, LLC is what's taken venture funding and can provide equity to employees. Understandably there's conflict now between those who want to increase growth and profit (and hence the value of their equity) and those who are loyal to the mission of the non-profit.
  - erosenbe0 3y ago
    I don't really think this is true in non-charity work. Half of American hospitals are nonprofit and many of the insurance conglomerates are too, like Kaiser. The executives make plenty of money. Kaiser is a massive nonprofit shell for profitmaking entities owned by physicians or whatever, not all that dissimilar to the OpenAI shell idea. Healthcare worked out this way because it was seen as a good model to have doctors either reporting to a nonprofit or owning their own operations, not reporting to shareholders. That's just tradition though. At this point plenty of healthcare operations are just normal corporations controlled by shareholders.
  - rvba 3y ago
    Lots of non profits that collect money for "cause X" spend 95% of money for administration and 5% for cause X.
graftak 3y ago
People got burned on “don’t be evil” once and so far OpenAI’s vision looks like a bunch of marketing superlatives when compared to their track record.
- nopromisessir 3y ago
  [dead]
- phero_cnstrcts 3y ago
  At this point I tend to believe that big company slogans mean the opposite of what the words say. Like I would become immediately suspicious if food packaging had “real food” written on it.
  - timacles 3y ago
    Unless somehow a “mission statement” is legally binding it will never mean anything that matters. Its always written by PR people with marketing in mind
- nmfisher 3y ago
  At least Google lasted a good 10 years or so before succumbing to the vagaries of the public stock market. OpenAI lasted, what, 3 years? Not to mention Google never paraded itself around as a non-profit acting in the best interests of humanity.
  - rolandog 3y ago
    I would classify their mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" as some light parading acting in the best interests of humanity.
  - bad_user 3y ago
    > Google never paraded itself around as a non-profit acting in the best interests of humanity. Just throwing this out there, but maybe … non-profits shouldn't be considered holier-than-thou, just because they are “non-profits”.
coldtea 3y ago
Those mission statements are a dime a dozen. A junkie's promise has more value.
- im3w1l 3y ago
  Ianal, but given that OpenAI Inc is a 501(c)(3) public charity wouldn't that mean that the mission statement has some actual legal power to it?
juanani 3y ago
[dead]
vaxman 3y ago
It could be hard to do that while paying a penalty to FTB and IRS for what they’re suspected to have done (in allowing a for-profit subsidiary to influence an NPO parent) or dealing with SEC and the state courts over any fiduciary breach allegations related to the published stories. [ Nadella is an OG genius because his company is now shielded from all of that drama as it plays out, no matter the outcome. He can take the time to plan for a soft landing at MS for any OpenAI workers (if/when they need it) and/or to begin duplicating their efforts “just in case.” Heard coming from the HQ parking lot in Redmond https://youtu.be/GGXzlRoNtHU https://youtu.be/GGXzlRoNtHU ] Now we can all go back to work on GPT4turbo integrations while MS worries about diverting a river or whatever to power and cool all of those AI chips they’re gunna [sic] need because none of our enterprises will think twice about our decisions to bet on all this. /s/
- erosenbe0 3y ago
  For profit subsidiaries can totally influence the nonprofit shell without penalty. Happens all the time. The nonprofit board must act in the interest of the exempt mission rather than just investor value or some other primary purpose. Otherwise it's cool.
  - vaxman 3y ago
    yeah, all they have to do is pray for humanity to not let the magic AI out of the bottle and they’re free to have a $91b valuation and flaunt it in the media for days.. https://youtu.be/2HJxya0CWco https://youtu.be/2HJxya0CWco
bottled_poe 3y ago
If that were true they’d be a not-for-profit
mrangle 3y ago
What is socially defined as beneficial-to-humanity is functionally mandated by the MSM and therefore capricious, at the least. With that in mind, a translation: "OpenAI will be obligated to make decisions according to government preference as communicated through soft pressure exerted by the Media. Don't expect these decisions to make financial sense for us".
blitzar 3y ago
> most likely to benefit humanity as a whole Giving me a billion $ would be a net benefit to humanity as a whole
- jraph 3y ago
  Depends on what you do (and stop doing) with it :-)

rvba 3y ago

Most employees of any organization dont give a fuck about the vision or mission (often they dont even know it) - and are there just for the money.

j_maffe 3y ago
Doesn't mean we shouldn't hold an organization accountable for their publicized mission statement. Especially its board and directors.
DoughnutHole 3y ago
Not so true working for an organisation that is ostensibly a non-profit. People working for a non-profit are generally taking a significant hit to their earning's compared to doing similar work in a for-profit, outside of the top management of huge global charities. The issue here is that OpenAI, Inc (officially and legally a non-profit) has spun up a subsidiary OpenAI Global, LLC (for-profit). OpenAI Global, LLC is what's taken venture funding and can provide equity to employees. Understandably there's conflict now between those who want to increase growth and profit (and hence the value of their equity) and those who are loyal to the mission of the non-profit.
- erosenbe0 3y ago
  I don't really think this is true in non-charity work. Half of American hospitals are nonprofit and many of the insurance conglomerates are too, like Kaiser. The executives make plenty of money. Kaiser is a massive nonprofit shell for profitmaking entities owned by physicians or whatever, not all that dissimilar to the OpenAI shell idea. Healthcare worked out this way because it was seen as a good model to have doctors either reporting to a nonprofit or owning their own operations, not reporting to shareholders. That's just tradition though. At this point plenty of healthcare operations are just normal corporations controlled by shareholders.
- rvba 3y ago
  Lots of non profits that collect money for "cause X" spend 95% of money for administration and 5% for cause X.

graftak 3y ago

People got burned on “don’t be evil” once and so far OpenAI’s vision looks like a bunch of marketing superlatives when compared to their track record.

nopromisessir 3y ago
[dead]
phero_cnstrcts 3y ago
At this point I tend to believe that big company slogans mean the opposite of what the words say. Like I would become immediately suspicious if food packaging had “real food” written on it.
- timacles 3y ago
  Unless somehow a “mission statement” is legally binding it will never mean anything that matters. Its always written by PR people with marketing in mind
nmfisher 3y ago
At least Google lasted a good 10 years or so before succumbing to the vagaries of the public stock market. OpenAI lasted, what, 3 years? Not to mention Google never paraded itself around as a non-profit acting in the best interests of humanity.
- rolandog 3y ago
  I would classify their mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" as some light parading acting in the best interests of humanity.
- bad_user 3y ago
  > Google never paraded itself around as a non-profit acting in the best interests of humanity. Just throwing this out there, but maybe … non-profits shouldn't be considered holier-than-thou, just because they are “non-profits”.

coldtea 3y ago

Those mission statements are a dime a dozen. A junkie's promise has more value.

im3w1l 3y ago
Ianal, but given that OpenAI Inc is a 501(c)(3) public charity wouldn't that mean that the mission statement has some actual legal power to it?

juanani 3y ago

[dead]

vaxman 3y ago

It could be hard to do that while paying a penalty to FTB and IRS for what they’re suspected to have done (in allowing a for-profit subsidiary to influence an NPO parent) or dealing with SEC and the state courts over any fiduciary breach allegations related to the published stories. [ Nadella is an OG genius because his company is now shielded from all of that drama as it plays out, no matter the outcome. He can take the time to plan for a soft landing at MS for any OpenAI workers (if/when they need it) and/or to begin duplicating their efforts “just in case.” Heard coming from the HQ parking lot in Redmond https://youtu.be/GGXzlRoNtHU https://youtu.be/GGXzlRoNtHU ] Now we can all go back to work on GPT4turbo integrations while MS worries about diverting a river or whatever to power and cool all of those AI chips they’re gunna [sic] need because none of our enterprises will think twice about our decisions to bet on all this. /s/

erosenbe0 3y ago
For profit subsidiaries can totally influence the nonprofit shell without penalty. Happens all the time. The nonprofit board must act in the interest of the exempt mission rather than just investor value or some other primary purpose. Otherwise it's cool.
- vaxman 3y ago
  yeah, all they have to do is pray for humanity to not let the magic AI out of the bottle and they’re free to have a $91b valuation and flaunt it in the media for days.. https://youtu.be/2HJxya0CWco https://youtu.be/2HJxya0CWco

bottled_poe 3y ago

If that were true they’d be a not-for-profit

mrangle 3y ago

What is socially defined as beneficial-to-humanity is functionally mandated by the MSM and therefore capricious, at the least. With that in mind, a translation: "OpenAI will be obligated to make decisions according to government preference as communicated through soft pressure exerted by the Media. Don't expect these decisions to make financial sense for us".

blitzar 3y ago

> most likely to benefit humanity as a whole Giving me a billion $ would be a net benefit to humanity as a whole

jraph 3y ago
Depends on what you do (and stop doing) with it :-)