4 ms·

He also denied OpenAI will be a for-profit company. Yet, here we are. When billions of dollars are up for grabs, values, ethics, morality, past promises and ev

He also denied OpenAI will be a for-profit company. Yet, here we are. When billions of dollars are up for grabs, values, ethics, morality, past promises and everything else in between will be thrown out the window. For society, the framework should always be that a corporation is inherently evil. It is only a matter of time when that evil presents itself.

slimebot80 2y ago
Hey, he's in competition with his old mate Elon. Clearly this is what he's referencing. Tesla has made about 34bn in income over the last 3 years, with stormy waters ahead, yet Elon pocketed himself 56bn under the guise of saving humanity, which is a "vibe" OpenAI also needlessly projects.
- nightski 2y ago
  That doesn't seem right to me, I am seeing $15B net income in 2023 alone. What am I missing.
  - Ygg2 2y ago
    Valuation isn't income.
    - ivewonyoung 2y ago
      Valuation is about $800B, not $15B.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    You aren’t missing anything. The comment you’re responding to is wrong and understating net income for some reason. It was indeed $15B last year. Plus the targets set for Elon’s package was based on a number of metrics there were already met, so I don’t know why net income matters.
  - slimebot80 2y ago
    Hey you're right I updated the figure. It's better, but still ridiculous IMO. But people will justify it how they want.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Pocketed? No he took a zero salary comp package with equity for hitting absurd targets no one thought he could hit. A strong majority of shareholders approved the package then and reapproved it now. He hit the targets so it’s accurate to say he earned it.
  - tock 2y ago
    Wasn't the argument that a lot of internal folks didn't think the targets were absurd? That's what I read in the court document.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      That’s the claim, but the court document’s tone and language shows this was an ideological decision for the judge rather than a factual determination. Regardless, shareholders just voted again on that same exact package retroactively and re approved it. This was a clear indication that the market still feels, even in hindsight, that the past targets were deserving of the equity granted. What internal folks thought or the judge’s guess about shareholders being “tricked” doesn’t matter since it is something shareholders (owners of the company) have judged on their own with all the information they have now about past performance. Also, neither Elon nor his brother voted on the measure. So to me all this serves as evidence that enough people think the targets were absurd enough to at least justify the equity.
      - tock 2y ago
        The cult of Elon is a large reason for Tesla's ridiculous valuation so it makes sense to give him credit. I just find it hilarious that Tesla's total profit over all these years is still lower than this pay package.
        slimebot80 2y ago
        Exactly, and now the shine is gone, along with a timely 56 billion.
    - 2y ago
- dangitman 2y ago
  [dead]
Lerc 2y ago
When did he say that? In 2019 his position seemed to be this. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sam-altman-says-openai-still-050000271.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sam-altman-says-openai-still-... > Altman said OpenAI's long development time-horizon ultimately meant it had no choice but to abandon the nonprofit model if the company intends to survive. > > "In spirit, we still view ourselves as working for the world," Altman said. "But I think you have to sort of play the field as it lies. And we just need so much capital to do our work. I think we'll need more capital than any nonprofit has ever raised, probably, and so this was sort of a reflection of reality." Did he make statements counter to this at a later date?
- kumarvvr 2y ago
  https://openai.com/our-structure/ https://openai.com/our-structure/ The company started as a non-profit. A pretty damning evidence in itself. This was in December 2015. Did it take this genius 4 years to figure out that to survive as a company, you need to a for profit entity? Nah. I think the strategy was to milk the marketing for all its worth, claiming to be "advancing the world, with no penny in pocket" high minded savior company. And then pivot (an innovative move) into raking in the money. Did all the investors pour in billions without the understanding that this will become a for profit, and a for profit that will 10x their investments?
- Jensson 2y ago
  Have you read their original statements? > We're a non-profit research company. Our full-time staff of 60 researchers and engineers is dedicated to working towards our mission regardless of the opportunities for selfish gain which arise along the way. "regardless of the opportunities for selfish gain which arise along the way", they failed really hard on that point. That Sam Altman had already changed course by 2019 doesn't mean he didn't lie at the start. https://www.openphilanthropy.org/files/Grants/OpenAI/OpenAI_Mission.pdf https://www.openphilanthropy.org/files/Grants/OpenAI/OpenAI_...
  - Lerc 2y ago
    I thought Sam had no equity in OpenAI and this story is claiming there's no plan for him to have a significant stake. Where is the selfish gain? You can claim that the story is false and there is a plan for gain but at this stage we have someone saying A and someone saying !A. It's probably a time to look for evidence.
Mistletoe 2y ago
He's already a billionaire. I don't understand the motivation. I follow a lot of fatFIRE type subreddits and those people are done when they get a few tens of millions and concentrate on quality of life and enjoying their years remaining. It must take an enhanced level of megalomania or God complex to throw away everything (humanity, your reputation) to go for more than 1 billion.
- kumarvvr 2y ago
  Money is never enough. Not for a homeless person, not for a billionaire.
  - glimshe 2y ago
    If it's never enough, then it's pointless to try to accumulate more. You will be in the same situation of not having enough money. What you say is not true, otherwise nobody would retire early and many people do just that. However, many billionaires become that rich for being exactly the type of person for whom money is never enough. But we don't need to be like them.
    - kumarvvr 2y ago
      > pointless to try to accumulate more That is only true if you are constrained by lack of opportunities. When money is never enough, then every opportunity to make some is going to be used to the full extent.
      - wombatpm 2y ago
        Except corporations that will pass on 100 million dollar companies, because it’s not enough to move the needle

slimebot80 2y ago

Hey, he's in competition with his old mate Elon. Clearly this is what he's referencing. Tesla has made about 34bn in income over the last 3 years, with stormy waters ahead, yet Elon pocketed himself 56bn under the guise of saving humanity, which is a "vibe" OpenAI also needlessly projects.

nightski 2y ago
That doesn't seem right to me, I am seeing $15B net income in 2023 alone. What am I missing.
- Ygg2 2y ago
  Valuation isn't income.
  - ivewonyoung 2y ago
    Valuation is about $800B, not $15B.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  You aren’t missing anything. The comment you’re responding to is wrong and understating net income for some reason. It was indeed $15B last year. Plus the targets set for Elon’s package was based on a number of metrics there were already met, so I don’t know why net income matters.
- slimebot80 2y ago
  Hey you're right I updated the figure. It's better, but still ridiculous IMO. But people will justify it how they want.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Pocketed? No he took a zero salary comp package with equity for hitting absurd targets no one thought he could hit. A strong majority of shareholders approved the package then and reapproved it now. He hit the targets so it’s accurate to say he earned it.
- tock 2y ago
  Wasn't the argument that a lot of internal folks didn't think the targets were absurd? That's what I read in the court document.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    That’s the claim, but the court document’s tone and language shows this was an ideological decision for the judge rather than a factual determination. Regardless, shareholders just voted again on that same exact package retroactively and re approved it. This was a clear indication that the market still feels, even in hindsight, that the past targets were deserving of the equity granted. What internal folks thought or the judge’s guess about shareholders being “tricked” doesn’t matter since it is something shareholders (owners of the company) have judged on their own with all the information they have now about past performance. Also, neither Elon nor his brother voted on the measure. So to me all this serves as evidence that enough people think the targets were absurd enough to at least justify the equity.
    - tock 2y ago
      The cult of Elon is a large reason for Tesla's ridiculous valuation so it makes sense to give him credit. I just find it hilarious that Tesla's total profit over all these years is still lower than this pay package.
      - slimebot80 2y ago
        Exactly, and now the shine is gone, along with a timely 56 billion.
  - 2y ago
dangitman 2y ago
[dead]

Lerc 2y ago

When did he say that? In 2019 his position seemed to be this. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sam-altman-says-openai-still-050000271.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sam-altman-says-openai-still-... > Altman said OpenAI's long development time-horizon ultimately meant it had no choice but to abandon the nonprofit model if the company intends to survive. > > "In spirit, we still view ourselves as working for the world," Altman said. "But I think you have to sort of play the field as it lies. And we just need so much capital to do our work. I think we'll need more capital than any nonprofit has ever raised, probably, and so this was sort of a reflection of reality." Did he make statements counter to this at a later date?

kumarvvr 2y ago
https://openai.com/our-structure/ https://openai.com/our-structure/ The company started as a non-profit. A pretty damning evidence in itself. This was in December 2015. Did it take this genius 4 years to figure out that to survive as a company, you need to a for profit entity? Nah. I think the strategy was to milk the marketing for all its worth, claiming to be "advancing the world, with no penny in pocket" high minded savior company. And then pivot (an innovative move) into raking in the money. Did all the investors pour in billions without the understanding that this will become a for profit, and a for profit that will 10x their investments?
Jensson 2y ago
Have you read their original statements? > We're a non-profit research company. Our full-time staff of 60 researchers and engineers is dedicated to working towards our mission regardless of the opportunities for selfish gain which arise along the way. "regardless of the opportunities for selfish gain which arise along the way", they failed really hard on that point. That Sam Altman had already changed course by 2019 doesn't mean he didn't lie at the start. https://www.openphilanthropy.org/files/Grants/OpenAI/OpenAI_Mission.pdf https://www.openphilanthropy.org/files/Grants/OpenAI/OpenAI_...
- Lerc 2y ago
  I thought Sam had no equity in OpenAI and this story is claiming there's no plan for him to have a significant stake. Where is the selfish gain? You can claim that the story is false and there is a plan for gain but at this stage we have someone saying A and someone saying !A. It's probably a time to look for evidence.

Mistletoe 2y ago

He's already a billionaire. I don't understand the motivation. I follow a lot of fatFIRE type subreddits and those people are done when they get a few tens of millions and concentrate on quality of life and enjoying their years remaining. It must take an enhanced level of megalomania or God complex to throw away everything (humanity, your reputation) to go for more than 1 billion.

kumarvvr 2y ago
Money is never enough. Not for a homeless person, not for a billionaire.
- glimshe 2y ago
  If it's never enough, then it's pointless to try to accumulate more. You will be in the same situation of not having enough money. What you say is not true, otherwise nobody would retire early and many people do just that. However, many billionaires become that rich for being exactly the type of person for whom money is never enough. But we don't need to be like them.
  - kumarvvr 2y ago
    > pointless to try to accumulate more That is only true if you are constrained by lack of opportunities. When money is never enough, then every opportunity to make some is going to be used to the full extent.
    - wombatpm 2y ago
      Except corporations that will pass on 100 million dollar companies, because it’s not enough to move the needle