My comment might've seemed like I judge them for trying to make a profit - I don't, since there's nothing wrong with that. I was more pointing to the fact that they probably need to make a profit, rather sooner than later, so they aren't shackled by M$ and can be an independent company.

If they ever do become an independent company you can be sure that Microsoft would already have sucked them dry. Microsoft will never let them go now as long as they are valuable.

If they're 100% marketing first, and still made the most impressive AI product so far, you really need to question what all the other companies are doing.

(before someone says Google or Meta's models are bigger or something... I mean product, not models)

openAI is in the business of releasing impressive tech demos, Google is in the business of providing search results. I would believe that Google is further along towards creating something useful, but they still don't have anything that's better than their existing search product.

I mean it might not be the most impressive, but again since they're marketing focused they're a hell of a lot better at getting word out.

Still I wouldn't be shocked if they were ahead of the tech race, but as someone who was way into dota and tech and very interested in AI, i followed their results with the game closely, and was very disappointed with how they handled the presentation of their data in multiple instances.

It was still massively impressive that they even got it to play the game, let alone win matches, but certain factors that really should've been mentioned weren't, and they liked to pull the AI before it could get embarrassed

Dropping the tactical nuke of ChatGPT was PR brilliance, nearly anyone would kill for shifting the public conversation that dramatically. That kind of marketing first is a synonym for "winner", it almost doesn't matter what the actual product is, or if it works.

But it does, and then look at the impossibility of their position. If the massive cost of research and operations _augments a profitable line of business_, it is perhaps acceptable. Otherwise, you're just setting cash on fire.

Extremely difficult to operate as a non-profit, more realistic as a division than a standalone org, as much as I dislike saying my second pro-MS thing in a week, it makes sense, and I am OK with them operating anywhere except tucked inside an ad business.

Maybe this sort of thing should be operated by the government funding or whatever, but... it isn't.

This post will probably age as well as the guy who argued with Drew Houston on the market need for DropBox on here when he announced it.

I mean given i'm still comparing it to landing people on mars i'm not sure what else you expect as far as "this is still world changing technology"

We shouldn't underestimate a company's engineering due to their PR/marketing strategy.

Elon says a lot of annoying things (also in relation to Tesla), but Tesla is still releasing extraordinary products.

Apple is (in a very different manner) also 100% marketing first. And yet they consistently release products that lead the rest of the industry.

On the other hand, if OpenAI is successful and predictions are correct that it will be used to generate a massive amount of spam and turn the internet into gloop then the entirety of Y Combinator's mission ages poorly. I guess offline computing or local networks only would become a bigger thing.