4 ms·

Because the development of this technology was originally done under a certain set of promises ostensibly intended to prevent pure capitalist profitmaxxing. T

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.
- clhodapp 1y ago

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.
clhodapp 1y ago