4 ms·

I want to put my opinion somewhere and as a reply to this seems like a good option. I am anti-capitalism and anti-profit and anti-Microsoft, but I can take a s

I want to put my opinion somewhere and as a reply to this seems like a good option. I am anti-capitalism and anti-profit and anti-Microsoft, but I can take a step back and recognize the truth to what’s being said here. They give the context that hundreds of billions are being spent on AI right now, and if OpenAI wants to remain competitive, they need significantly more money than they originally anticipated. They’re recognizing they can’t get this money unless there is a promise of returns for those who give it. There any not many people equipped to fork over $50 billion with zero return and I assume of the very few people who can, none expressed interest in doing so. They need money to stay competitive. They felt confident they’d be surpassed without it. This was their only avenue for getting that money. And while it would have been more true to the original mission to simply let other people surpass them, if that’s what happens, my guess is that Sam is doing some mental gymnastics as to how now letting that happen and at least letting some part of OpenAI’s success be nonprofit is better than the competition who would have 0% be charitable

scottyah 2y ago
It seems to me like they started out aiming for a smaller role, pursuing AGI through the advancement of algorithms and technologies. After their 15min of fame where they released half-baked technology (in the true Stanford Way), they seem to be set on monopolizing AGI. They only need the billions to compete with the other players.
int_19h 2y ago
The man is a known fraudster. Why should we take anything he says on good faith to begin with?
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> They need money to stay competitive. The mission was never to stay competitive. The mission was to develop AGI. They need to be competitive if they want to make billions of dollars for themselves and their shareholders; they don't need to be competitive to develop AGI.
- whamlastxmas 2y ago
  I meant competitive in terms of the roadmap to AGI, not in the marketplace. Feasible would have been a better word
rewgs 2y ago
> my guess is that Sam is doing some mental gymnastics as to how now letting that happen and at least letting some part of OpenAI’s success be nonprofit is better than the competition who would have 0% be charitable "I don't know about you people, but I don't want to live in a world where someone else makes the world a better place better than we do." - Gavin Belson

scottyah 2y ago

It seems to me like they started out aiming for a smaller role, pursuing AGI through the advancement of algorithms and technologies. After their 15min of fame where they released half-baked technology (in the true Stanford Way), they seem to be set on monopolizing AGI. They only need the billions to compete with the other players.

int_19h 2y ago

The man is a known fraudster. Why should we take anything he says on good faith to begin with?

insane_dreamer 2y ago

> They need money to stay competitive. The mission was never to stay competitive. The mission was to develop AGI. They need to be competitive if they want to make billions of dollars for themselves and their shareholders; they don't need to be competitive to develop AGI.

whamlastxmas 2y ago
I meant competitive in terms of the roadmap to AGI, not in the marketplace. Feasible would have been a better word

rewgs 2y ago

> my guess is that Sam is doing some mental gymnastics as to how now letting that happen and at least letting some part of OpenAI’s success be nonprofit is better than the competition who would have 0% be charitable "I don't know about you people, but I don't want to live in a world where someone else makes the world a better place better than we do." - Gavin Belson