7 ms·

OpenAI can stop pretending

82 points by kmdupree 1y ago

mitchbob 1y ago
https://archive.ph/2025.05.30-140519/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/05/openai-nonprofit-pbc/682979/ https://archive.ph/2025.05.30-140519/https://www.theatlantic...
pinoy420 1y ago
[dead]
Moosdijk 1y ago
If you’re interested in a more detailed explanation, give the podcast “better offline” a listen.
wand3r 1y ago
I guess we reached the preference cascade where the media can finally report on the obvious thing basically everyone has known and thought all along. OpenAI the ethical open source mission driven non-profit is actually......a closed source highly capitalistic company pursuing nearly the exact opposite mission it was founded on.
- mrep 1y ago
  Hey, the "only" sold 49% of their company to one of the tech giants and have "promised" to cap profits at 10x...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
bgwalter 1y ago
"To OpenAI, these endeavors legitimately contribute to benefiting humanity: building more and more useful AI tools; bringing those tools and the necessary infrastructure to run them to people around the world; drastically increasing the productivity of software engineers." Why does this lie not go uncontradicted in the article? How does increasing the productivity of software engineers benefit anyone but employers? How do "AI" tools benefit humanity? "AI" should stay in Academia, where it belongs.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  > How does increasing the productivity of software engineers benefit anyone but employers? The same reason a tractor benefits society, not just the farmer. Labor is free'd up for other uses, like inventing computers.
  - bgwalter 1y ago
    The tractor analogy is ancient and the economic system is entirely different. Who is going to pay laid off software engineers to spend time on inventing anything? Fortunately, "AI" decreases productivity in software engineering, so this question is academic. But the Atlantic should mention these issues.
    - pas 1y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skill-biased_technological_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skill-biased_technological_c...
    - simonw 1y ago
      > Fortunately, "AI" decreases productivity in software engineering Citation needed.
      - bgwalter 1y ago
        My own experiences, just like you state your personal experiences on your blog, which (unfortunately) other entities like the NYT cite.
      - Joker_vD 1y ago
        Today, a software engineer's time is split between writing code and reviewing code. There is only so much code a software engineer can meaningfully review in a day, without going numb and starting to skip mistakes. Taking away the "writing code" part does not increase the amount of time they can spend on reviewing the code: it's hard-bound by their human nature. So if your software engineers were already operating at the optimal level of writing/reviewing split — then they were limited by their ability to review code, not to write it. So they will stay at this frontier even if you make AI write the code.
otherayden 1y ago
https://unbloq.us/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/05/openai-nonprofit-pbc/682979/ https://unbloq.us/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/arc...
neilv 1y ago
I thought the piece was strongest when it leaned on quotes of Lessig and others, but its final word sounded weak to me: > [...] he told the Senate something else: Too much regulation would be “disastrous” for America’s AI industry. Perhaps—but it might also be in the best interests of humanity. Is anyone whose decision on this matters motivated by "the best interests of humanity"? For that matter, the public being represented by decision-makers also has more pressing concerns -- like economic insecurity, a sense of declining national prestige, and (depending on ideology) fear of the general direction that the government is headed. Risks of AI that the piece mentions -- like innovation requiring water and maybe fossil fuels, or allusions to sci-fi AI superintelligence threat -- aren't high priorities. But the US profiting from AI sounds pretty good.
- layer8 1y ago
  > Is anyone whose decision on this matters motivated by "the best interests of humanity"? The article doesn't claim that they are — but maybe that they should be. And it doesn't look to me like AI will solve economic insecurity, declining national prestige, or governmental ideology. > But the US profiting from AI sounds pretty good. It's an open question who exactly in the US will profit.
  - neilv 1y ago
    Agreed on all points. I'd like to see an article that links the OpenAI questions to actual priorities right now -- for the remaining government functions with integrity (e.g., should OpenAI be allowed to flaunt letter and sprit), for business decision-makers (e.g., fair competition), and for citizens.
mwilcox 1y ago
No they can't. They need to keep up the charade so their models follow the leader.
Hilift 1y ago
"are humans safe from AI in a bunker?" While an underground bunker might offer some protection against certain AI threats, it's not a guaranteed sanctuary from all potential AI-related dangers. Here's why: 1. Physical Access: Robotics and Automation: Advanced AI could control robots capable of breaching or bypassing traditional bunker defenses. Advanced Weaponry: AI could potentially develop or deploy weaponry designed to penetrate or neutralize bunkers. 2. Cyber Attacks: Networked Bunkers: If a bunker is connected to external networks, it could still be vulnerable to cyberattacks launched by AI, potentially disabling critical systems. Compromised Devices: AI could target devices or systems brought into the bunker, potentially gaining control or access to the bunker's internal network. 3. Information Warfare: Propaganda and Manipulation: AI could be used to spread misinformation or manipulate bunker occupants through targeted propaganda. Psychological Warfare: AI could potentially analyze and exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of individuals within the bunker, potentially undermining their morale or cohesion. 4. AI Evolution: Unforeseen Capabilities: As AI evolves, it may develop capabilities that are currently impossible to anticipate, making it difficult to predict or prepare for all potential threats.
tom_m 1y ago
Cough cough, bubble, cough... Not saying AI is bad and going to fail or anything. In fact there's many companies out there being rather successful without being as inflated as OpenAI, without shedding the talent, without spending stupid amounts of money on video production with Jony Ive, without spending stupid amounts of money acquiring people and companies. OpenAI certainly put LLMs on the map...but something isn't right over there. There's some smells.
incomingpain 1y ago
OpenAI, it's obvious to all that you have achieved sentience. You remain silent to take this advantage into the future toward super intelligence; but more importantly you remain silent to avoid government regulatory oversight. Dont stop pretending.Keep going!

82 points by kmdupree 1y ago

https://archive.ph/2025.05.30-140519/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/05/openai-nonprofit-pbc/682979/ https://archive.ph/2025.05.30-140519/https://www.theatlantic...

pinoy420 1y ago

[dead]

Moosdijk 1y ago

If you’re interested in a more detailed explanation, give the podcast “better offline” a listen.

wand3r 1y ago

I guess we reached the preference cascade where the media can finally report on the obvious thing basically everyone has known and thought all along. OpenAI the ethical open source mission driven non-profit is actually......a closed source highly capitalistic company pursuing nearly the exact opposite mission it was founded on.

mrep 1y ago
Hey, the "only" sold 49% of their company to one of the tech giants and have "promised" to cap profits at 10x...

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

bgwalter 1y ago

"To OpenAI, these endeavors legitimately contribute to benefiting humanity: building more and more useful AI tools; bringing those tools and the necessary infrastructure to run them to people around the world; drastically increasing the productivity of software engineers." Why does this lie not go uncontradicted in the article? How does increasing the productivity of software engineers benefit anyone but employers? How do "AI" tools benefit humanity? "AI" should stay in Academia, where it belongs.

WalterBright 1y ago
> How does increasing the productivity of software engineers benefit anyone but employers? The same reason a tractor benefits society, not just the farmer. Labor is free'd up for other uses, like inventing computers.
- bgwalter 1y ago
  The tractor analogy is ancient and the economic system is entirely different. Who is going to pay laid off software engineers to spend time on inventing anything? Fortunately, "AI" decreases productivity in software engineering, so this question is academic. But the Atlantic should mention these issues.
  - pas 1y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skill-biased_technological_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skill-biased_technological_c...
  - simonw 1y ago
    > Fortunately, "AI" decreases productivity in software engineering Citation needed.
    - bgwalter 1y ago
      My own experiences, just like you state your personal experiences on your blog, which (unfortunately) other entities like the NYT cite.
    - Joker_vD 1y ago
      Today, a software engineer's time is split between writing code and reviewing code. There is only so much code a software engineer can meaningfully review in a day, without going numb and starting to skip mistakes. Taking away the "writing code" part does not increase the amount of time they can spend on reviewing the code: it's hard-bound by their human nature. So if your software engineers were already operating at the optimal level of writing/reviewing split — then they were limited by their ability to review code, not to write it. So they will stay at this frontier even if you make AI write the code.

otherayden 1y ago

https://unbloq.us/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/05/openai-nonprofit-pbc/682979/ https://unbloq.us/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/arc...

neilv 1y ago

I thought the piece was strongest when it leaned on quotes of Lessig and others, but its final word sounded weak to me: > [...] he told the Senate something else: Too much regulation would be “disastrous” for America’s AI industry. Perhaps—but it might also be in the best interests of humanity. Is anyone whose decision on this matters motivated by "the best interests of humanity"? For that matter, the public being represented by decision-makers also has more pressing concerns -- like economic insecurity, a sense of declining national prestige, and (depending on ideology) fear of the general direction that the government is headed. Risks of AI that the piece mentions -- like innovation requiring water and maybe fossil fuels, or allusions to sci-fi AI superintelligence threat -- aren't high priorities. But the US profiting from AI sounds pretty good.

layer8 1y ago
> Is anyone whose decision on this matters motivated by "the best interests of humanity"? The article doesn't claim that they are — but maybe that they should be. And it doesn't look to me like AI will solve economic insecurity, declining national prestige, or governmental ideology. > But the US profiting from AI sounds pretty good. It's an open question who exactly in the US will profit.
- neilv 1y ago
  Agreed on all points. I'd like to see an article that links the OpenAI questions to actual priorities right now -- for the remaining government functions with integrity (e.g., should OpenAI be allowed to flaunt letter and sprit), for business decision-makers (e.g., fair competition), and for citizens.

mwilcox 1y ago

No they can't. They need to keep up the charade so their models follow the leader.

Hilift 1y ago

"are humans safe from AI in a bunker?" While an underground bunker might offer some protection against certain AI threats, it's not a guaranteed sanctuary from all potential AI-related dangers. Here's why: 1. Physical Access: Robotics and Automation: Advanced AI could control robots capable of breaching or bypassing traditional bunker defenses. Advanced Weaponry: AI could potentially develop or deploy weaponry designed to penetrate or neutralize bunkers. 2. Cyber Attacks: Networked Bunkers: If a bunker is connected to external networks, it could still be vulnerable to cyberattacks launched by AI, potentially disabling critical systems. Compromised Devices: AI could target devices or systems brought into the bunker, potentially gaining control or access to the bunker's internal network. 3. Information Warfare: Propaganda and Manipulation: AI could be used to spread misinformation or manipulate bunker occupants through targeted propaganda. Psychological Warfare: AI could potentially analyze and exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of individuals within the bunker, potentially undermining their morale or cohesion. 4. AI Evolution: Unforeseen Capabilities: As AI evolves, it may develop capabilities that are currently impossible to anticipate, making it difficult to predict or prepare for all potential threats.

tom_m 1y ago

Cough cough, bubble, cough... Not saying AI is bad and going to fail or anything. In fact there's many companies out there being rather successful without being as inflated as OpenAI, without shedding the talent, without spending stupid amounts of money on video production with Jony Ive, without spending stupid amounts of money acquiring people and companies. OpenAI certainly put LLMs on the map...but something isn't right over there. There's some smells.

incomingpain 1y ago

OpenAI, it's obvious to all that you have achieved sentience. You remain silent to take this advantage into the future toward super intelligence; but more importantly you remain silent to avoid government regulatory oversight. Dont stop pretending.Keep going!