4 ms·

Anyone who thinks these companies ever cared about any of that is naive.

by GiorgioG 2mo ago

Davidzheng 2mo ago
Then I am naive, but I think they cared before they got powerful and chatgpt release.
- nchmy 2mo ago
  So you're saying they have no integrity?
- SimianSci 2mo ago
  so back when the stakes were low to non-existant? If your principles are only available on display when there is no consequence, they arnt your principles, they are a mask.
  - daveguy 2mo ago
    100% this. OpenAI created a for-profit subsidy (that is now an SBC and only controlled 26% by the original non-profit). Guess when they did that? After GPT-2 (Feb 2019) and before GPT-3 (June 2020). Not remotely surprising they started the move to for-profit as soon as they had something they thought could be profitable. Then in 2025 they switched to an SBC, dropped the non-profit control well below 50% and completely got rid of the profit cap. Just in time for the IPO talk. It was a mask the whole time.
- sodapopcan 2mo ago
  At most I would buy that they convinced themselves they cared. It bought them a lot of good will at the time.
serial_dev 2mo ago
Developing the thing they say will cause the end of the world? Look, if I was worried about nuclear bombs, I wouldn’t work on a nuclear bomb developing research center. It’s all fake and pompous garbage.
stego-tech 2mo ago
I mean naivety is the default until wisdom born of experience prevails. I bought into the “do no evil” mantra of Google, and boy howdy did I learn the hard lessons from that. It’s partly not arbitrarily punishing the naive unless they refuse to learn the lesson. Invite them in, acknowledging the error in judgement, and help them to be better going forward. That’s how we win.
- GiorgioG 2mo ago
  Capitalism creates never satiated hunger for more profits at almost any cost (even human life...see health insurance, but that's another discussion).
williamdclt 2mo ago
Maybe they cared, but that's always been irrelevant. "Show me the incentive and i'll show you the outcome": the only incentive for a company in our economic system is to make as much money as possible, anything in the way of that will get eroded by incentives (principled people get fired, or quit, or their principles weaken, or they get forced into doing things against their principles, or they get outcompeted, or...). Thinking that an actor in a system will go against the incentives of the system (at least at scale and over time) is naive.
Flip-per 2mo ago
How about Volvo giving away their patented 3-point safety belt design for free to all competitors? https://techandmedialaw.com/open-patent-rights-for-seatbelts/ https://techandmedialaw.com/open-patent-rights-for-seatbelts... (edit: sorry, re-reading your comment you were more directly referring to the AI companies and this context, I interpreted this more generally on my first glance)

Anyone who thinks these companies ever cared about any of that is naive.

Davidzheng 2mo ago

Then I am naive, but I think they cared before they got powerful and chatgpt release.

nchmy 2mo ago
So you're saying they have no integrity?
SimianSci 2mo ago
so back when the stakes were low to non-existant? If your principles are only available on display when there is no consequence, they arnt your principles, they are a mask.
- daveguy 2mo ago
  100% this. OpenAI created a for-profit subsidy (that is now an SBC and only controlled 26% by the original non-profit). Guess when they did that? After GPT-2 (Feb 2019) and before GPT-3 (June 2020). Not remotely surprising they started the move to for-profit as soon as they had something they thought could be profitable. Then in 2025 they switched to an SBC, dropped the non-profit control well below 50% and completely got rid of the profit cap. Just in time for the IPO talk. It was a mask the whole time.
sodapopcan 2mo ago
At most I would buy that they convinced themselves they cared. It bought them a lot of good will at the time.

serial_dev 2mo ago

Developing the thing they say will cause the end of the world? Look, if I was worried about nuclear bombs, I wouldn’t work on a nuclear bomb developing research center. It’s all fake and pompous garbage.

stego-tech 2mo ago

I mean naivety is the default until wisdom born of experience prevails. I bought into the “do no evil” mantra of Google, and boy howdy did I learn the hard lessons from that. It’s partly not arbitrarily punishing the naive unless they refuse to learn the lesson. Invite them in, acknowledging the error in judgement, and help them to be better going forward. That’s how we win.

GiorgioG 2mo ago
Capitalism creates never satiated hunger for more profits at almost any cost (even human life...see health insurance, but that's another discussion).

williamdclt 2mo ago

Maybe they cared, but that's always been irrelevant. "Show me the incentive and i'll show you the outcome": the only incentive for a company in our economic system is to make as much money as possible, anything in the way of that will get eroded by incentives (principled people get fired, or quit, or their principles weaken, or they get forced into doing things against their principles, or they get outcompeted, or...). Thinking that an actor in a system will go against the incentives of the system (at least at scale and over time) is naive.

Flip-per 2mo ago

How about Volvo giving away their patented 3-point safety belt design for free to all competitors? https://techandmedialaw.com/open-patent-rights-for-seatbelts/ https://techandmedialaw.com/open-patent-rights-for-seatbelts... (edit: sorry, re-reading your comment you were more directly referring to the AI companies and this context, I interpreted this more generally on my first glance)