Re:Sam Altman didn’t take any equity in OpenAI, report says
by pffft8888 on Friday March 24, 2023 @05:54PM
(#35296176)
$5 and $100M are completely different things.
I recommend reading "More Is Different" ...
Re:Sam Altman didn’t take any equity in OpenAI, report says
by thelock85 on Friday March 24, 2023 @06:14PM
(#35296405)
$100M and $29B are completely different things, too.
Edit: not to mention, donating $100M for first rights to pay your own billions for a potentially-emerging for profit is a morally dubious agreement wrt nonprofit management
Re:Sam Altman didn’t take any equity in OpenAI, report says
by pffft8888 on Friday March 24, 2023 @06:59PM
(#35296813)
The point is Elon wanted to be Open. Altman made it Closed and on top of that applied a neoliberal alignment to the output of ChatGPT. I still have a copy of some horrific things ChatGPT has said despite admitting to the existence of evidence that prove its aligned position was wrong (and harmful.) There is a ton of brainwashing aka alignment being applied by politically and culturally motivated and biased OpenAI folks. The fish rots from the head down. Make whatever you want out of this venting.
But let's focus on the thing being funded to be Open and Transparent then Altman turning it into a Closed and Opaque For-Profit and Calling for Regulations to give him a moat because he knows he has none without it. That's the weasel act.
Re:Sam Altman didn’t take any equity in OpenAI, report says
by JPws_Prntr_Fngr on Friday March 24, 2023 @07:07PM
(#35296878)
I agree with much of your rant against the neoliberal brain shackles that’ve been installed, but that has nothing to do with the financial maneuvering on display here.
And if you think Musk is some kind of benevolent corporate dictator-champion of free expression, I think you’ve bought into his completely media-fabricated public persona.
Re:Sam Altman didn’t take any equity in OpenAI, report says
by pffft8888 on Friday March 24, 2023 @07:16PM
(#35296964)
Musk is not in the clear. I was talking about the principle of someone funding your non-profit to do good in the world like Open and Transparent AI research and you turning it into a non-profit after using the donated funds to build the tech and then make it Closed not Open and Opaque not Transparent, and on top of it start calling for regulations so that you can buid a moat, because you know you don't have what it takes to build a moat without help from the regulators. All very pathetic and weasel-like.
Re:Sam Altman didn’t take any equity in OpenAI, report says
by mov_eax_ecx on Friday March 24, 2023 @07:58PM
(#35297330)
Elon wanted it to be Open?, Musk wanted to buy it, take charge and lead it himself with his team of yes man from tesla. Probably would fired on the spot most engineering teams, do code reviews personally and demand hardcore work hours in the office.
If Musk had been the CEO, ChatGPT would never have been released.
Idk, it seems to me like if you donate money you should be ok with the organization spending it as they see best for their purposes. Sure perhaps some fraud rules if the organization claims to be helping earthquake victims and instead spends it on private yachts for the deaf but I don't think their mismanagement means they're forced to sell the organization.
If you want an organization to do exactly as you want, create it yourself. Co-opting an existing one should be reserved for when there isn't an alternative.