5 ms·

It's about the narrative they tried to create. The spin. It doesn't matter much if they were technically behaving as a for-profit entity previously. What matter

It's about the narrative they tried to create. The spin. It doesn't matter much if they were technically behaving as a for-profit entity previously. What matters is that they wanted the public (and likely, their talent) to _think_ that they weren't even interested in making a profit as this would be a philosophical threat to the notion of any sort of impartial or even hopefully benevolent originator of AGI (a goal which is laid plainly in their mission statement). As you've realized, this should have been (and was) obvious for a long time. But that doesn't make it any less hypocritical or headline worthy.

pj_mukh 2y ago
Occam's razor: I think Sam's personal narrative is the correct one. He built a non-profit that took off in a way that he didn't expect it and now a for-profit is the best way to run the lightning they've caught. In terms of profit, AFAICT, Sam doesn't have designs on building extra large yachts and his own space agency but what he wants is to be the one at the stead of building what he considers is world-changing tech. One could rationally call this power-hungry but one could also rationally call this just helicopter parenting of a tech you've helped built. And for that a for-profit that is allowed to maximize profits to re-invest in the tech is the optimal setup (esp if all the competitors are doing the same) Is this a different org than when it started? Yes. Was this a dupe from the beginning? I don't think so. "But why can't he have a more worldly-aligned board looking over his shoulder?" Because we live in California and have a bad taste for governance by committee or worse: governance by constant non-representative democracy (see: Housing). If this now completely comes off the wheels, I still think Congressional action can be a stopgap, but atleast for now, this restructure makes sense to me.
- grey-area 2y ago
  He didn’t build it.
  - eberfreitas 2y ago
    Can we please, move this comment to the top?
- huevosabio 2y ago
  I don't think the narrative makes sense. It was clear from way back in 2016 that training would take a ton of resources. Researchers were already been sucked into FAANG labs because they had the data, the compute, and the money. There was never a viable way for a true non-profit to make world-changing, deep learning-based AI models. When seen through the rearview mirror, the whole narrative screams of self-importance and duplicity. GPT-2 was too dangerous, and only they were trust-worthy enough to possess. They were trust-worthy because this was a non-profit, so "interest aligned with humanity". This charade has continued even to barely some months ago.
- feoren 2y ago
  Sam: "I'm not in it for the money. I have principles." World: "But what if it was like, a lot of money?" Sam: "Oh alright you convinced me. Fuck my principles."
  - pj_mukh 2y ago
    What do you do with a a lot of money past a point? A corporate controlled AGI being just a stop on the way to build another private space agency seems like a...letdown.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      To be honest, I would take a private space agency 7 days out of the week with that kind of capital. We have no fundamental proof that LLMs will scale to the intelligence levels that we imagine in our heads. The industry application for LLMs is even weaker than computer vision, and the public sentiment is almost completely against it. Sam's product is hype; eventually people are going to realize that Q* and Strawberry were marketing moves intended to extend OpenAI's news cycle relevancy and not serious steps towards superintelligence. We were promised tools, and they're shipping toys. I could tell you in very plain terms how a competitor to Boeing and SpaceX would benefit the American economy. I have not even the faintest fucking clue what "AGI" even is, or how it's profitable if it resembles the LLMs that OpenAI is selling today.
      - cdchn 2y ago
        Private space agency and LLMs both seem like big industries going nowhere driven by sci-fi hopes and dreams.
        sfblah 2y ago
        Not sure I agree with you here. I use LLMs all the time for work. I've never once used a space agency for anything.
        2y ago
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- namaria 2y ago
  Occam's razor has never meant "let's take discourse at face value". That's not least complexity. That's least effort.
cdchn 2y ago
>What matters is that they wanted the public (and likely, their talent) to _think_ that they weren't even interested in making a profit as this would be a philosophical threat to the notion of any sort of impartial or even hopefully benevolent originator of AGI (a goal which is laid plainly in their mission statement) And now they want to cast off any pretense of that former altruistic yolk now that they have a new, better raison d'etre to attract talent: making absolutely unparalleled stacks of cash.
- nejkbnek 2y ago
  Just FYI it's "yoke" when it's a burden, "yolk" when it's an egg
  - salad-tycoon 2y ago
    Maybe, they do seem to have egg on their face.
- hackernewds 2y ago
  Note Elon made a significant "donation" early into OpenAI given their non-profit designation and intentions, in return receiving zero equity. The donation was also received tax free
  - stonogo 2y ago
    He received a seat on the board, which he surrendered when Tesla started investing in AI.
- kombookcha 2y ago
  It sort of remains to be seen whether they can actually make that cash - they're no longer the only game in town, and while they have an obvious adoption and brand name recognition advantage in their industry, they've also been running real hot on investor funding on the assumption that more processing power is what it's gonna take for them to stay competitive and continue improving. But they're gonna have to fight Google and Microsoft on that front. If there is a general plateau coming up in all of these models, or they fail to keep pace with their extremely well-supplied competition, it might not be so easy to convert their position into money.

pj_mukh 2y ago

Occam's razor: I think Sam's personal narrative is the correct one. He built a non-profit that took off in a way that he didn't expect it and now a for-profit is the best way to run the lightning they've caught. In terms of profit, AFAICT, Sam doesn't have designs on building extra large yachts and his own space agency but what he wants is to be the one at the stead of building what he considers is world-changing tech. One could rationally call this power-hungry but one could also rationally call this just helicopter parenting of a tech you've helped built. And for that a for-profit that is allowed to maximize profits to re-invest in the tech is the optimal setup (esp if all the competitors are doing the same) Is this a different org than when it started? Yes. Was this a dupe from the beginning? I don't think so. "But why can't he have a more worldly-aligned board looking over his shoulder?" Because we live in California and have a bad taste for governance by committee or worse: governance by constant non-representative democracy (see: Housing). If this now completely comes off the wheels, I still think Congressional action can be a stopgap, but atleast for now, this restructure makes sense to me.

grey-area 2y ago
He didn’t build it.
- eberfreitas 2y ago
  Can we please, move this comment to the top?
huevosabio 2y ago
I don't think the narrative makes sense. It was clear from way back in 2016 that training would take a ton of resources. Researchers were already been sucked into FAANG labs because they had the data, the compute, and the money. There was never a viable way for a true non-profit to make world-changing, deep learning-based AI models. When seen through the rearview mirror, the whole narrative screams of self-importance and duplicity. GPT-2 was too dangerous, and only they were trust-worthy enough to possess. They were trust-worthy because this was a non-profit, so "interest aligned with humanity". This charade has continued even to barely some months ago.
feoren 2y ago
Sam: "I'm not in it for the money. I have principles." World: "But what if it was like, a lot of money?" Sam: "Oh alright you convinced me. Fuck my principles."
- pj_mukh 2y ago
  What do you do with a a lot of money past a point? A corporate controlled AGI being just a stop on the way to build another private space agency seems like a...letdown.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    To be honest, I would take a private space agency 7 days out of the week with that kind of capital. We have no fundamental proof that LLMs will scale to the intelligence levels that we imagine in our heads. The industry application for LLMs is even weaker than computer vision, and the public sentiment is almost completely against it. Sam's product is hype; eventually people are going to realize that Q* and Strawberry were marketing moves intended to extend OpenAI's news cycle relevancy and not serious steps towards superintelligence. We were promised tools, and they're shipping toys. I could tell you in very plain terms how a competitor to Boeing and SpaceX would benefit the American economy. I have not even the faintest fucking clue what "AGI" even is, or how it's profitable if it resembles the LLMs that OpenAI is selling today.
    - cdchn 2y ago
      Private space agency and LLMs both seem like big industries going nowhere driven by sci-fi hopes and dreams.
      - sfblah 2y ago
        Not sure I agree with you here. I use LLMs all the time for work. I've never once used a space agency for anything.
        2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
namaria 2y ago
Occam's razor has never meant "let's take discourse at face value". That's not least complexity. That's least effort.

cdchn 2y ago

>What matters is that they wanted the public (and likely, their talent) to _think_ that they weren't even interested in making a profit as this would be a philosophical threat to the notion of any sort of impartial or even hopefully benevolent originator of AGI (a goal which is laid plainly in their mission statement) And now they want to cast off any pretense of that former altruistic yolk now that they have a new, better raison d'etre to attract talent: making absolutely unparalleled stacks of cash.

nejkbnek 2y ago
Just FYI it's "yoke" when it's a burden, "yolk" when it's an egg
- salad-tycoon 2y ago
  Maybe, they do seem to have egg on their face.
hackernewds 2y ago
Note Elon made a significant "donation" early into OpenAI given their non-profit designation and intentions, in return receiving zero equity. The donation was also received tax free
- stonogo 2y ago
  He received a seat on the board, which he surrendered when Tesla started investing in AI.
kombookcha 2y ago
It sort of remains to be seen whether they can actually make that cash - they're no longer the only game in town, and while they have an obvious adoption and brand name recognition advantage in their industry, they've also been running real hot on investor funding on the assumption that more processing power is what it's gonna take for them to stay competitive and continue improving. But they're gonna have to fight Google and Microsoft on that front. If there is a general plateau coming up in all of these models, or they fail to keep pace with their extremely well-supplied competition, it might not be so easy to convert their position into money.