25 ms·
We have seen how much power does the board have after the firing of Altman - none. Let's see how this plays out. PBC effectively means nothing - just take a lo
by elAhmo 1y ago
We have seen how much power does the board have after the firing of Altman - none.
Let's see how this plays out. PBC effectively means nothing - just take a look at Xai and its purchase of Twitter. I would love to listen reasoning explaining why this ~33 billion USD move is benefiting public.
- ignoramous 1y ago> We have seen how much power does the board have after the firing of Altman - none. Right; so, "Worker Unions" work.
- wmf 1y agoChatGPT is free. That's the public benefit.
- nativeit 1y agoDefine “free”.
- fooker 1y agofree as in free beer
- celdon25 1y agoIt’s like a free beer, but it’s Bud Light, lukewarm, and your reaction to tasting the beer goes toward researching ways to make you appreciate the lukewarm Bud Light for its marginal value, rather than making that beer taste better or less unhealthy. They’ll try very hard to convince you that they have though. It parallels their approach to AI Alignment.
- windsignaling 1y agoI don't pay money for it?
- nicce 1y agoI will give you a free beer if I can listen all your personal conversations.
- sekai 1y agoThey don't collect data?
- wmf 1y agoIf you use it, that means you received more value than you gave up. It's called consumer surplus.
- patmcc 1y agoThat's effectively every business that isn't a complete rent-seeking monopoly. It's not a very good measure. edit: to be clear, it's not a bad thing - we should want companies that create consumer surplus. But that's the default state of companies in a healthy market.
- jaccola 1y agoIf I pay £200,000 for a car, I received more value than I gave up, otherwise I wouldn't have given the owner £200,000 for her car. No reasonable person would say the car was "free"...
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> If you use it, that means you received more value than you gave up. It's called consumer surplus This is true for literally any transaction. Actually, it's true for any rational action. If you're being tortured, and you decide it's not worth it to keep your secrets hidden any longer, you get more than you give up when you stop being tortured.
- klabb3 1y agoIt’s only true in theory and over a single transaction, not necessarily over time. The hack that VCs have exploited for decades now is subsidizing products and acquiring competition to eventually enshittify. In this case, when OpenAI dials up the inevitable enshittification, they’ll have gotten a ton of data from their users to use for their proprietary closed AI.
- buuuutwut 1y ago
- patmcc 1y agoGoogle offers a great many things for free. Should they get beneficial tax treatment for it?
- wmf 1y agoPBCs have no beneficial tax treatment and neither does OpenAI.
- moralestapia 1y agoSo, what's the point of a PBC? Not being snarky here, like what is the purported thesis behind them?
- nemomarx 1y agomarketing to certain types of philanthropic investors? I think
- insane_dreamer 1y agoMostly branding, like Google's "do no evil" Some founders truly believe in structuring the company for the benefit of the public, but Altman has already shown he's not one of them.
- patmcc 1y agoHuh. Then yah, what the heck? Why not just be a regular corp?
- jampekka 1y agoBranding, and perhaps a demand from the judges. In practice it doesn't mean anything if/when they stuff the board with people who want to run it as a normal LLC.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoThat's like saying AWS is free. ChatGPT has a limited use free tier just like most other SaaS products out there.
- paulddraper 1y agoThe board had plenty of power. There was never a coherent explanation of its firing the CEO. But they could have stuck with that decision if they believed in it.
- freejazz 1y agoThe question is not if they could, it is if they would.
- michaelt 1y agoThe explanation seemed pretty obvious to me: They set up a nonprofit to deliver an AI that was Open. Then things went unexpectedly well, people were valuing them at billions of dollars, and they suddenly decided they weren't open any more. Suddenly they were all about Altman's Interests Safety (AI Safety for short). The board tried to fulfil its obligation to get the nonprofit to do the things in its charter, and they were unsuccessful.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoThe explanation was pretty clear and coherent: The CEO was no longer adhering to the mission of the non-profit (which the board was upholding). But they found themselves alone in that it turns out the employees (who were employed by the for-profit company) and investors (MSFT in particular) didn't care about the mission and wanted to follow the money instead. So the board had no choice but to capitulate and leave.