5 ms·

I don’t understand the animus towards OAI going public. ChatGPT undoubtedly changed the world. The non->for profit status of the company is not impacting anyo

I don’t understand the animus towards OAI going public. ChatGPT undoubtedly changed the world. The non->for profit status of the company is not impacting anyone. It’s not like their success was made possible by being a non-profit. Suddenly everyone here is very very concerned with the classification of this corporate entity, and I detect people feel personally slighted. Why is that?

lukebechtel 1y ago
Because the development of this technology was originally done under a certain set of promises ostensibly intended to prevent pure capitalist profitmaxxing. The workers and supporters who were taken by this idealistic vision, believe it was a bait-and-switch, and that the original promises were never intended to be kept.
- khazhoux 1y ago
  > The workers and supporters who were taken by this idealistic vision I haven’t heard from any of the workers. Why are people white-knighting for them? My hot take is that they don’t mind being able to afford a house (or more) for their efforts. Where’s the outraged employees in this conversation? As for “supporters,” what does that mean? People who watch from the sidelines and never actually contributed don’t usually get a say.
  - Jensson 1y ago
    Donors get a say, did donors get any stock? Its very ugly when you built your for profit by stealing donations from a non-profit, people can condemn that even if they themselves didn't personally lose money similarly to how we can condemn companies abusing people even if we didn't work there.
    - khazhoux 1y ago
      Did OpenAI take donations? I’m assuming that the “donors” Thiel, Musk, etc, did receive stock. Massive lawsuit otherwise. But did regular folks donate? Otherwise it seems people are outraged that their hypothetical donations were misused.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > workers and supporters who were taken by this idealistic vision The only people who can claim harm are donors and workers who actually left, e.g. Murati. "Supporters" aren't stakeholders in any material sense.
  - lukebechtel 1y ago
    choosing whether to use, or advocate for, a company's services is a form of support
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > choosing whether to use, or advocate for, a company's services is a form of support Sure. But if the services are rendered, the ideology is orthogonal. For the slim minority of uncompromising zealots for whom it is not, damages can be quantified and paid.
      - lukebechtel 1y ago
        are you asserting this is the way things should work, or how they do work, or both?
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > are you asserting this is the way things should work, or how they do work, or both? How it does and, to a limited degree, how it should. If you donate to or volunteer for a non-profit, you have non-pecuniary interest in how they are run. If you're sold a product that's promised to be made in a certain way, you do too. If you paid for--much less used without paying--a service because you thought it was ethical per some definition, but aren't similarly bound in other purchases in your life, or otherwise can't show this is a value you consistently follow (and so, in being denied it here, have been damaged), I'm not sure any functional economy can work where anyone has a free option to take back a purchase--or much less, non-monetary use--at any time in the future because they feel--but can't materially demonstrate--betrayal. Like, maybe if Stallman used ChatGPT he could credibly claim he wouldn't have used it if it hadn't marketed its claims around goodness. But I'm deeply sceptical a rando has the same standing.
vessenes 1y ago
They are chronically online and reading uninformed headlines by fellow youth. Combined with a feeling that they don't like this wave of GenAI, you get a lot of uninformed hate that's deeply felt, and probably reasonably felt. But also totally uninformed.
- 7492728292283 1y ago
  If only everyone was as enlightened as you are.
  - vessenes 1y ago
    I at least like to be informed - I sense you disagree with my hot take.. Any concrete thoughts other than performative eye rolling?
rottencupcakes 1y ago
They founded OpenAI on the explicit premise that advanced AI poses existential risks to humanity, and that a non profit structure was essential to prioritize safety over profits. They reaped major benefits from this status, including tax exemptions, easier talent recruitment (by appealing to mission-driven researchers), and massive donations. Then, once GPT models exploded in value, making the for-profit arm worth tens of billions, they attempted to restructure toward a public company model to let investors and insiders cash out at scale, while claiming the non-profit board would still "control" the direction. This directly contradicts their original charter, which warned that profit motives could lead to unsafe AI racing. Now it is clear that we are nowhere near AGI, and hence they have to make money from making fake tiktok videos and smut. And they just want to cash out because the original premise won't deliver. Specifically it was very disingenuous and that is why people hate it.
- rvz 1y ago
  i.e: it was a complete grift.
array_key_first 1y ago
> The non->for profit status of the company is not impacting anyone. They're quite literally running away with millions in tax money they stole. That means from YOU. It's a sense of entitlement that pisses people off. Imagine you're a hardworking American who pays his taxes for the betterment of his country. And then here comes this Sam Altman douchebag, who thinks he's so important he doesn't have to pay taxes. He thinks you should foot the bill, because you're nobody, and he's Sam Altman. If you're not at least a little bit pissed at the precedent this is setting, I personally view that as pathetic.
- khazhoux 1y ago
  What taxes did they not pay? Quick research suggests that they do pay taxes on revenue, and I can't find any articles that definitively show what taxes they avoided by having a non-profit arm.

lukebechtel 1y ago

Because the development of this technology was originally done under a certain set of promises ostensibly intended to prevent pure capitalist profitmaxxing. The workers and supporters who were taken by this idealistic vision, believe it was a bait-and-switch, and that the original promises were never intended to be kept.

khazhoux 1y ago
> The workers and supporters who were taken by this idealistic vision I haven’t heard from any of the workers. Why are people white-knighting for them? My hot take is that they don’t mind being able to afford a house (or more) for their efforts. Where’s the outraged employees in this conversation? As for “supporters,” what does that mean? People who watch from the sidelines and never actually contributed don’t usually get a say.
- Jensson 1y ago
  Donors get a say, did donors get any stock? Its very ugly when you built your for profit by stealing donations from a non-profit, people can condemn that even if they themselves didn't personally lose money similarly to how we can condemn companies abusing people even if we didn't work there.
  - khazhoux 1y ago
    Did OpenAI take donations? I’m assuming that the “donors” Thiel, Musk, etc, did receive stock. Massive lawsuit otherwise. But did regular folks donate? Otherwise it seems people are outraged that their hypothetical donations were misused.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> workers and supporters who were taken by this idealistic vision The only people who can claim harm are donors and workers who actually left, e.g. Murati. "Supporters" aren't stakeholders in any material sense.
- lukebechtel 1y ago
  choosing whether to use, or advocate for, a company's services is a form of support
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > choosing whether to use, or advocate for, a company's services is a form of support Sure. But if the services are rendered, the ideology is orthogonal. For the slim minority of uncompromising zealots for whom it is not, damages can be quantified and paid.
    - lukebechtel 1y ago
      are you asserting this is the way things should work, or how they do work, or both?
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > are you asserting this is the way things should work, or how they do work, or both? How it does and, to a limited degree, how it should. If you donate to or volunteer for a non-profit, you have non-pecuniary interest in how they are run. If you're sold a product that's promised to be made in a certain way, you do too. If you paid for--much less used without paying--a service because you thought it was ethical per some definition, but aren't similarly bound in other purchases in your life, or otherwise can't show this is a value you consistently follow (and so, in being denied it here, have been damaged), I'm not sure any functional economy can work where anyone has a free option to take back a purchase--or much less, non-monetary use--at any time in the future because they feel--but can't materially demonstrate--betrayal. Like, maybe if Stallman used ChatGPT he could credibly claim he wouldn't have used it if it hadn't marketed its claims around goodness. But I'm deeply sceptical a rando has the same standing.

vessenes 1y ago

They are chronically online and reading uninformed headlines by fellow youth. Combined with a feeling that they don't like this wave of GenAI, you get a lot of uninformed hate that's deeply felt, and probably reasonably felt. But also totally uninformed.

7492728292283 1y ago
If only everyone was as enlightened as you are.
- vessenes 1y ago
  I at least like to be informed - I sense you disagree with my hot take.. Any concrete thoughts other than performative eye rolling?

rottencupcakes 1y ago

They founded OpenAI on the explicit premise that advanced AI poses existential risks to humanity, and that a non profit structure was essential to prioritize safety over profits. They reaped major benefits from this status, including tax exemptions, easier talent recruitment (by appealing to mission-driven researchers), and massive donations. Then, once GPT models exploded in value, making the for-profit arm worth tens of billions, they attempted to restructure toward a public company model to let investors and insiders cash out at scale, while claiming the non-profit board would still "control" the direction. This directly contradicts their original charter, which warned that profit motives could lead to unsafe AI racing. Now it is clear that we are nowhere near AGI, and hence they have to make money from making fake tiktok videos and smut. And they just want to cash out because the original premise won't deliver. Specifically it was very disingenuous and that is why people hate it.

rvz 1y ago
i.e: it was a complete grift.

array_key_first 1y ago

> The non->for profit status of the company is not impacting anyone. They're quite literally running away with millions in tax money they stole. That means from YOU. It's a sense of entitlement that pisses people off. Imagine you're a hardworking American who pays his taxes for the betterment of his country. And then here comes this Sam Altman douchebag, who thinks he's so important he doesn't have to pay taxes. He thinks you should foot the bill, because you're nobody, and he's Sam Altman. If you're not at least a little bit pissed at the precedent this is setting, I personally view that as pathetic.

khazhoux 1y ago
What taxes did they not pay? Quick research suggests that they do pay taxes on revenue, and I can't find any articles that definitively show what taxes they avoided by having a non-profit arm.