4 ms·

The perceived hypocrisy stems from the contrast between OpenAI's public statements about benefiting humanity and their actions, which reveal a profit-driven foc

The perceived hypocrisy stems from the contrast between OpenAI's public statements about benefiting humanity and their actions, which reveal a profit-driven focus similar to Microsoft's. Unlike Microsoft, OpenAI lacks transparency about this core motivation. Microsoft is not bullshitting that they do AI for the common good under an NGO.

blowski 3y ago
Many, many companies claim to be doing what they do for the good of all humanity - they would have you believe that any profit made is just a nice side effect. Examples: * Aon insurance - At Aon, we exist to shape decisions for the better — to protect and enrich the lives of people around the world. * Nike - Bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world * Glencore - Responsibly sourcing the commodities that advance everyday life I don't really see any difference with OpenAI, beyond their name including some fluffy sounding loveliness.
- PunchTornado 3y ago
  none of these examples say that we are not in for the money or profit and under an NGO If you read the article openai says that they are not in for the money and then proceed to be in for the money. Also, Ilya says to not change anything because it will hurt recruitment.
- Pengtuzi 3y ago
  Well, they being an NGO is a big difference.
hackerlight 3y ago
> OpenAI's public statements about benefiting humanity and their actions, which reveal a profit-driven focus similar to Microsoft's. Their reasoning is that not only are those things not mutually exclusive; it would have been impossible to achieve that mission without the capped-profit pivot. Which is pretty obviously true (and by Elon Musk's admission, "0% chance"). I don't think anyone could have had the foresight in 2015 that Chinchilla scaling laws would necessitate multiple billions of dollars. Like, everyone knew scaling was important, but not to the point that you could easily divine that a pure nonprofit would guarantee failure. I also don't get the exaggerated anger at "hypocrisy" (or what some would call "changing ones mind"). If they renamed to XYZ AI, does that make them any better or worse than xAI or Anthropic on whatever measure you care about? They are yet another closed AI company. Ok? If being closed AI is evil, then one should be equally angry at their equivalently closed competitors. If being closed AI is not evil, then one should not be so angry at the alleged hypocrisy. My point is, hypocrites doing evil things are about as bad as non-hypocrites doing the equivalent evil thing, which means the disparate emotional reactions we're seeing are unreasonable.
- xvector 3y ago
  The backlash that OpenAI gets is the same as the backlash any entity gets upon becoming large and successful. I cannot think of a single example of any company or entity that has been lauded after experiencing hypergrowth, regardless of the value of these entities provide to humanity, which becomes normalized and thus taken for granted in the public conscience. I think it is in human nature to simply hate on anything that is more successful than ourselves. Perhaps it is jealousy, insecurity, pessimism, or something else. People will try to rationalize their hatred of <entity> but the trend is clear. There is literally nothing you can do as such an entity to consistently gain and keep the mob's goodwill. It does not matter how many free services you provide, how much further you have pushed humanity forward, how many billions have come to rely on or even enjoy what you have made - all these are taken for granted (perhaps a testament to your success), and all you are left with is dissatisfaction/hatred from the public. This is just a sad fact of human nature. See: tall poppy syndrome, negativity bias, expectation inflation, and the general impossibility of consistently maintaining widescale goodwill.
  - notahacker 3y ago
    > all you are left with is dissatisfaction/hatred from the public. and billions of dollars, and the hero-worship of people that will excuse literally anything you did to get there...
    - xvector 3y ago
      Yes, of course people will criticize you for making money (even when you are hemorrhaging billions), and every choice you make (because it's trivially easy to construe literally any decision as evil.) Again, maintaining goodwill at scale for long periods of time is simply not possible. People will end up taking what you contribute for granted and find something to get angry about.
      - notahacker 3y ago
        Maintaining goodwill with some people is pretty easy. All you have to do is be successful, and they'll insist that anyone with the temerity to suggest they might have been less dishonest is only doing so out of envy. After all, nobody ever criticises unsuccessful companies.

blowski 3y ago

Many, many companies claim to be doing what they do for the good of all humanity - they would have you believe that any profit made is just a nice side effect. Examples: * Aon insurance - At Aon, we exist to shape decisions for the better — to protect and enrich the lives of people around the world. * Nike - Bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world * Glencore - Responsibly sourcing the commodities that advance everyday life I don't really see any difference with OpenAI, beyond their name including some fluffy sounding loveliness.

PunchTornado 3y ago
none of these examples say that we are not in for the money or profit and under an NGO If you read the article openai says that they are not in for the money and then proceed to be in for the money. Also, Ilya says to not change anything because it will hurt recruitment.
Pengtuzi 3y ago
Well, they being an NGO is a big difference.

hackerlight 3y ago

> OpenAI's public statements about benefiting humanity and their actions, which reveal a profit-driven focus similar to Microsoft's. Their reasoning is that not only are those things not mutually exclusive; it would have been impossible to achieve that mission without the capped-profit pivot. Which is pretty obviously true (and by Elon Musk's admission, "0% chance"). I don't think anyone could have had the foresight in 2015 that Chinchilla scaling laws would necessitate multiple billions of dollars. Like, everyone knew scaling was important, but not to the point that you could easily divine that a pure nonprofit would guarantee failure. I also don't get the exaggerated anger at "hypocrisy" (or what some would call "changing ones mind"). If they renamed to XYZ AI, does that make them any better or worse than xAI or Anthropic on whatever measure you care about? They are yet another closed AI company. Ok? If being closed AI is evil, then one should be equally angry at their equivalently closed competitors. If being closed AI is not evil, then one should not be so angry at the alleged hypocrisy. My point is, hypocrites doing evil things are about as bad as non-hypocrites doing the equivalent evil thing, which means the disparate emotional reactions we're seeing are unreasonable.

xvector 3y ago
The backlash that OpenAI gets is the same as the backlash any entity gets upon becoming large and successful. I cannot think of a single example of any company or entity that has been lauded after experiencing hypergrowth, regardless of the value of these entities provide to humanity, which becomes normalized and thus taken for granted in the public conscience. I think it is in human nature to simply hate on anything that is more successful than ourselves. Perhaps it is jealousy, insecurity, pessimism, or something else. People will try to rationalize their hatred of <entity> but the trend is clear. There is literally nothing you can do as such an entity to consistently gain and keep the mob's goodwill. It does not matter how many free services you provide, how much further you have pushed humanity forward, how many billions have come to rely on or even enjoy what you have made - all these are taken for granted (perhaps a testament to your success), and all you are left with is dissatisfaction/hatred from the public. This is just a sad fact of human nature. See: tall poppy syndrome, negativity bias, expectation inflation, and the general impossibility of consistently maintaining widescale goodwill.
- notahacker 3y ago
  > all you are left with is dissatisfaction/hatred from the public. and billions of dollars, and the hero-worship of people that will excuse literally anything you did to get there...
  - xvector 3y ago
    Yes, of course people will criticize you for making money (even when you are hemorrhaging billions), and every choice you make (because it's trivially easy to construe literally any decision as evil.) Again, maintaining goodwill at scale for long periods of time is simply not possible. People will end up taking what you contribute for granted and find something to get angry about.
    - notahacker 3y ago
      Maintaining goodwill with some people is pretty easy. All you have to do is be successful, and they'll insist that anyone with the temerity to suggest they might have been less dishonest is only doing so out of envy. After all, nobody ever criticises unsuccessful companies.