5 ms·

OpenAI’s only goal isn’t building AGI. It is to build it first and make money off it.

SchemaLoad 1y ago
What even is the monetization plan for AI. Seems like the cutting edge tech becomes immediately devalued to nothing after a few months when a new open source modal is released. After spending so many billions on this stuff, are they really going to pay it all off selling API credits?
- guappa 1y ago
  They have no idea but they're building a new AI and will soon ask it.
- Yeul 1y ago
  It's incredibly disheartening when you realize that the entire house of cards that is the internet is built on one thing: advertising money.
DebtDeflation 1y ago
And in the meantime, their goal is clearly to make money off non-AGI AI. I constantly get quasi-religious vibes from the current AI "leaders" (Altman, Amodei, and quite a few of the people who have left both companies to start their own). I never got those sort of vibes from Hinton, LeCun, or Bengio. The latest crop really does seem to believe that they're building some sort of "god" and that their god getting built first before one of their competitors builds a false god is paramount (in the literal meaning of the term) for the future of the human race.
a_bonobo 1y ago
Exactly! The Microsoft-OpenAI agreement states that AGI is whatever makes them 100 billion in profits. Nothing in there about anything intelligence related. >The two companies reportedly signed an agreement last year stating OpenAI has only achieved AGI when it develops AI systems that can generate at least $100 billion in profits. https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-a-financial-definition-of-agi-report/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-...
zeryx 1y ago
Is there even a point to money post AGI?
- eli_gottlieb 1y ago
  Not the real thing, no.
- komali2 1y ago
  Yes, because the development of AGI doesn't automatically mean the end of capitalism. Feudalism, mercantilism, and the final form, capitalism, weren't overthrown by new technologies, and while AGI is certainly a very special new technology, so was the internet. It doesn't matter how special AGI is if it's controlled by one company under the mechanisms of a capitalist liberal democracy - it's not like the laws don't matter anymore, or the contracts, debts, allegiances. What can AGI give us that would end scarcity, when our scarcity is artificial? New farming mechanisms that mean nobody go hungry? We already throw away most of our food. We don't lack food, our resource allocation mechanism (Capitalism) just requires some people to be hungry. What about new medicines? Magic new pills that cure cancer - why would these be given away for free when they can be sold, instead? Maybe AGI will recommend the perfect form of fair and equitable governance! Well, it almost certainly will be a recommendation that strips some power from people who don't want to give up any power at all, and it's not like they'll give it up without a fight. Not that they'll need to fight - billionaires exist today and have convinced people to fight for them, against people's own self interest, somehow (I still don't understand this). So, I'll modify Mark Fisher's quote - it's easier to imagine the creation of AGI than it is to imagine the end of capitalism.
  - Ray20 1y ago
    >our resource allocation mechanism (Capitalism) just requires some people to be hungry One of the observable features of capitalism is that there are no hungry people. Capitalism has completely solved the problem of hunger. People are hungry when they don't have capitalism. >billionaires exist today and have convinced people to fight for them People usually fighting for themselves. It's just that billionaires often are not enemies of society, but source of social well-being. Or even more often - a side effect of social well-being. People fighting for billionaires to protect social well-being, not to protect billionaires. >it's easier to imagine the creation of AGI than it is to imagine the end of capitalism There is no need to even imagine the end of capitalism - we see it all the time, most of the world can hardly be called capitalist. And the less capitalism there is, the worse.
cma 1y ago
The profit cap was supposed to be for first to acheive AGI being end game, and would ensure redistribution (though with apparently some kind of Altman tax through early World Coin ownership stake). When they realized they wouldn't reach AGI with current funding and they were so close to $100 billion market cap they couldn't entice new investors on $100 billion in profits, why didn't they set it to, say, $10 trillion instead of infinity? Because they are missionaries? A leaked email from Ilya early on even said they never planned to open source stuff long term, it was just to entice researchers at the beginning. Whole company is founded on lies and Altman was even fired from YC over self detailing or something in I think a deleted YC blog post if I remember right.

What even is the monetization plan for AI. Seems like the cutting edge tech becomes immediately devalued to nothing after a few months when a new open source modal is released. After spending so many billions on this stuff, are they really going to pay it all off selling API credits?

guappa 1y ago
They have no idea but they're building a new AI and will soon ask it.
Yeul 1y ago
It's incredibly disheartening when you realize that the entire house of cards that is the internet is built on one thing: advertising money.

DebtDeflation 1y ago

And in the meantime, their goal is clearly to make money off non-AGI AI. I constantly get quasi-religious vibes from the current AI "leaders" (Altman, Amodei, and quite a few of the people who have left both companies to start their own). I never got those sort of vibes from Hinton, LeCun, or Bengio. The latest crop really does seem to believe that they're building some sort of "god" and that their god getting built first before one of their competitors builds a false god is paramount (in the literal meaning of the term) for the future of the human race.

a_bonobo 1y ago

Exactly! The Microsoft-OpenAI agreement states that AGI is whatever makes them 100 billion in profits. Nothing in there about anything intelligence related. >The two companies reportedly signed an agreement last year stating OpenAI has only achieved AGI when it develops AI systems that can generate at least $100 billion in profits. https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-a-financial-definition-of-agi-report/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-...

zeryx 1y ago

Is there even a point to money post AGI?

eli_gottlieb 1y ago
Not the real thing, no.
komali2 1y ago
Yes, because the development of AGI doesn't automatically mean the end of capitalism. Feudalism, mercantilism, and the final form, capitalism, weren't overthrown by new technologies, and while AGI is certainly a very special new technology, so was the internet. It doesn't matter how special AGI is if it's controlled by one company under the mechanisms of a capitalist liberal democracy - it's not like the laws don't matter anymore, or the contracts, debts, allegiances. What can AGI give us that would end scarcity, when our scarcity is artificial? New farming mechanisms that mean nobody go hungry? We already throw away most of our food. We don't lack food, our resource allocation mechanism (Capitalism) just requires some people to be hungry. What about new medicines? Magic new pills that cure cancer - why would these be given away for free when they can be sold, instead? Maybe AGI will recommend the perfect form of fair and equitable governance! Well, it almost certainly will be a recommendation that strips some power from people who don't want to give up any power at all, and it's not like they'll give it up without a fight. Not that they'll need to fight - billionaires exist today and have convinced people to fight for them, against people's own self interest, somehow (I still don't understand this). So, I'll modify Mark Fisher's quote - it's easier to imagine the creation of AGI than it is to imagine the end of capitalism.
- Ray20 1y ago
  >our resource allocation mechanism (Capitalism) just requires some people to be hungry One of the observable features of capitalism is that there are no hungry people. Capitalism has completely solved the problem of hunger. People are hungry when they don't have capitalism. >billionaires exist today and have convinced people to fight for them People usually fighting for themselves. It's just that billionaires often are not enemies of society, but source of social well-being. Or even more often - a side effect of social well-being. People fighting for billionaires to protect social well-being, not to protect billionaires. >it's easier to imagine the creation of AGI than it is to imagine the end of capitalism There is no need to even imagine the end of capitalism - we see it all the time, most of the world can hardly be called capitalist. And the less capitalism there is, the worse.

cma 1y ago

The profit cap was supposed to be for first to acheive AGI being end game, and would ensure redistribution (though with apparently some kind of Altman tax through early World Coin ownership stake). When they realized they wouldn't reach AGI with current funding and they were so close to $100 billion market cap they couldn't entice new investors on $100 billion in profits, why didn't they set it to, say, $10 trillion instead of infinity? Because they are missionaries? A leaked email from Ilya early on even said they never planned to open source stuff long term, it was just to entice researchers at the beginning. Whole company is founded on lies and Altman was even fired from YC over self detailing or something in I think a deleted YC blog post if I remember right.