6 ms·

OpenAI is very much a for-profit company with the same incentives to make money as every other US for-profit company. I understand that there's another company

OpenAI is very much a for-profit company with the same incentives to make money as every other US for-profit company. I understand that there's another company that is a non-profit and that company bosses the for-profit company. In my opinion, that's more of a footnote in their governance story, it doesn't make OpenAI a non-profit. Their website says... "A new for-profit subsidiary would be formed, capable of issuing equity to raise capital and hire world class talent, but still at the direction of the Nonprofit. Employees working on for-profit initiatives were transitioned over to the new subsidiary." https://openai.com/our-structure https://openai.com/our-structure

madeofpalk 3y ago
They might be a for-profit company, but I don't believe they have made a profit. I wasn't even thinking of the murkey non-profit status.
- jrflowers 3y ago
  This is an important distinction. The difference between making a boatload of money on the cheap and making a boatload of money after spending an even bigger amount should matter to this cartoonist becau
- bink 3y ago
  They have over a billion dollars in revenue per year. They aren't making a profit because they're reinvesting all of that money into growing the company.
- godelski 3y ago
  > but I don't believe they have made a profit Wrong way to evaluate and you're missing the complaint from the artists. It doesn't matter what the company makes or loses, it matters if people end up with money in their pockets. I don't know ML counts as derivative or not, but I don't think that's important here. Regardless it is a fact that an artist does work, that work isn't paid for, and then that work is used by someone else in some way to sell a product. The complaint is specifically that they have no control over deciding if their work can be used in that way or not. At the end of the day, everyone working at OpenAI ends up with lots of money in their pockets. Regardless of the company profits or revenue, this money is connected to the work that these artists do, who do not make any or any substantial amounts of money. That's the underlying issue and we must read between the lines a bit to understand the difference between a specific point and the general thesis. Also, remember Stability does have revenue as well. OpenAI is being pointed at because they are top dog, but it's not like there aren't others doing the same thing. So even a very specific justification may not refute the original complaint.
danShumway 3y ago
Particularly after the whole Sam Altman debacle, regardless of one thinks that the board was being logical or not and regardless of whether anyone thinks that Sam Altman should have been fired, it's still very clear that the non-profit side of the company is not in control of the for-profit side. We've seen zero evidence that the non-profit side of OpenAI meaningfully constrains the for-profit side in any way, and have seen direct evidence that when the non-profit and for-profit groups disagree with each other, the for-profit side wins.

madeofpalk 3y ago

They might be a for-profit company, but I don't believe they have made a profit. I wasn't even thinking of the murkey non-profit status.

jrflowers 3y ago
This is an important distinction. The difference between making a boatload of money on the cheap and making a boatload of money after spending an even bigger amount should matter to this cartoonist becau
bink 3y ago
They have over a billion dollars in revenue per year. They aren't making a profit because they're reinvesting all of that money into growing the company.
godelski 3y ago
> but I don't believe they have made a profit Wrong way to evaluate and you're missing the complaint from the artists. It doesn't matter what the company makes or loses, it matters if people end up with money in their pockets. I don't know ML counts as derivative or not, but I don't think that's important here. Regardless it is a fact that an artist does work, that work isn't paid for, and then that work is used by someone else in some way to sell a product. The complaint is specifically that they have no control over deciding if their work can be used in that way or not. At the end of the day, everyone working at OpenAI ends up with lots of money in their pockets. Regardless of the company profits or revenue, this money is connected to the work that these artists do, who do not make any or any substantial amounts of money. That's the underlying issue and we must read between the lines a bit to understand the difference between a specific point and the general thesis. Also, remember Stability does have revenue as well. OpenAI is being pointed at because they are top dog, but it's not like there aren't others doing the same thing. So even a very specific justification may not refute the original complaint.

danShumway 3y ago

Particularly after the whole Sam Altman debacle, regardless of one thinks that the board was being logical or not and regardless of whether anyone thinks that Sam Altman should have been fired, it's still very clear that the non-profit side of the company is not in control of the for-profit side. We've seen zero evidence that the non-profit side of OpenAI meaningfully constrains the for-profit side in any way, and have seen direct evidence that when the non-profit and for-profit groups disagree with each other, the for-profit side wins.