Why can't someone ask what happened in Ilya's mind. Firing Sam and then signing the solidarity letter of Sam to leave OpenAI if was fired. Other than that, all other information seems kind of just going over the surface.
Because they lost and crumbled. They were unbelievably outmatched by Sam (a world-class manipulator) and Satya (the money behind OpenAI and himself a political genius.)
They were outmaneuvered, panicked, and folded.
Did they have to? No. But in the moment they thought they were on the precipice of nuking a deca-billion dollar company, their life’s greatest work, and a generational company.
It’s hard to stand against what they did. Unsurprising they couldn’t.
Then they should have made the position clear to the public, or at the very least have some communication with the employees. It's not hard to say that they were against Sam for some particular reason, if they are firing him. At least if the reason is good that might have given them some credibility.
> Then they should have made the position clear to the public
From what I understand, their legal counsel advised them not to speak publicly. Being inexperienced in this sort of political game, they thought they were doing the right thing.
This is so obviously wrong I don't know how this theory got popular. OpenAI had everything from compute to brand name to contracts. Sam wasn't the reason the money was coming, employees and OpenAI were. Even if Sam bought them money, board could still tell the reason of firing Sam rather than keeping it a secret.
And why did Ilya flip? He doesn't have much to gain by being in non profit when he could get more money elsewhere.
Wow, emotions and all. These people should never be anywhere near dangerous technology such as advanced AI. Luckily, neither of them seem to be anymore since openAI lost its leading (technical) edge to other companies.
Part of the counter was Microsoft was going to try and hire everyone individually, compensating for the lost stock appreciation, without the org itself, if they went through with maintaining the firing. I think that could have been much harder to pull off, but maybe they made them believe it was an inevitable outcome.
I remember when computer magazines were aimed at programmers and had code listings in them.
Then there seemed to come a time when all they talked about was the IBM vs. Microsoft lawsuit. From then on they must have felt that they had discovered a formula, because all they ever yapped about after was insider baseball of computer companies.
I find this sort of corp. vs. corp. coverage boring, sort of like techie reality TV. Who will be voted out tonight, Debra, or Deborah...?
I dunno man, there are two "tech" industry worlds and the one you and I -- hacker types -- think of as "tech" is not what the rest of the world means. They mean the other one, which has almost nothing to do with the actual technology and instead everything to do with the absolutely apeshit amount of money, power, influence and intrigue that the technology enabled.
This was a very large apeshit $$ amount back in IBM vs Microsoft but the scale of it now in the era of e.g. OpenAI etc is beyond imagination.
There's a whole generation of people whose association with the engineering/technology side of things only happened because of their interest in the other side of things.
What gets me is back in the day when I said I was into tech I got shat on for being a nerd. Now I get shit on for destroying the world. And because I don't care about whose company is dating who (I'd rather be coding), people call me out of touch with "tech".
I feel myself going insane when I think about it too much.
Interesting. So, the actual concern now for the average person is ... which narcissist is steering the apocalypse? Yeah, that's slightly more engaging than RAM prices.
what's wild is they accidentally solved it — pretraining IS unsupervised learning at scale, RLHF IS reinforcement learning. they just didnt know the recipe yet
What would unsupervised mean, would unsupervised be something like alphago playing against itself trillions of times?
Whereas self-supervised, allows learning without explicit annotation of data ; but it doesn't matter if the models already trained on the entire Internet, and it's not like a game where it can come up with effectively new training data for itself?
Unsupervised is basically clustering. Alphago is RL - winning or losing a game is a form of supervision.
Unsupervised is something where there is no intrinsic reward signal. In pre training, predicting the next token and seeing that it matches is a reward signal, hence it is self supervised.
fair point — OpenAI's original plan literally said "solve unsupervised learning". the self-supervised distinction wasnt really standard til after BERT/GPT popularized it
As far as Brockman account of the past goes, there's also his personal diary which was made public as a part of that lawsuit by Musk. Includes for example the line: "Financially what will take me to $1B?". BTW, if you don't know, Musk lost it because he filed too late, lol.
What about stealing 12 million books of copyrighted human culture, at massive scale, and then enclosing the value created inside proprietary, investor-backed systems? Something wrong with that?
What happens if you go tomorrow, downtown San Francisco, and leave a bookstore with one book without paying?
"Behind every great fortune there is a crime"
- Honoré de Balzac
I think there might be a difference between “I’m violating copyright law to enjoy a work of art” and “I’m violating copyright law on a global, species-wide scale to create a trillion dollar company and enrich myself.” Maybe you can argue the former is wrong but there’s no way it’s equivalent to the latter.
I don't think reading books (whether by human or by machine) is copyright infringement.
I think that attaining books that are still under copyright by downloading a pirate torrent is wrong.
I think a machine reading those books by borrowing them from a public library is fine.
I think copyright holders restricting their books from being in a public library is just as wrong as downloading a pirated copy.
I think deliberately reproducing a copyrighted book is wrong, but the infringement is by the person who did that, not by the person who built a tool which can incidentally be used for that.
Even though the founders of OpenAI are not exactly someone you'd root for, comparisons to theft are silly.
By that token it would be illegal to go into a library, read a book, and actually remember what was in it. Except in this case the reader is a robot.
LLMs are such a fundamentally different thing that existing laws don't really make sense. Wait! Put the pitchfork down! I know, I know, stealing is stealing, and OpenAI founders are slimy. But what about derivative works? Why is a human making a hip-hop track allowed to sample, and a robot is not? Again, LLMs are such a fundamentally different thing that existing laws don't really make sense.
It's actually surprising in retrospect that nobody did this sooner. Even back in the 80s books about computers would gush about how a computer has enough memory to store an entire library's worth of books. It's just that someone finally figured out how to put an index on it.
Where I agree: given that this is basically the sum of all humanity's knowledge, the company should have been a non-profit. It was a non-profit. And then greed won.
There are a lot of things that are fine individually that are extremely problematic at scale. Like "reading a book" vs "ingesting all the books and art that ever existed into a plagiarism machine"
If they illegally pirated books, i.e. downloading pdfs. thats illegal and piracy by no other name. If any of us do it, it's called pirating, why are you being disingenuous and saying it's not theft when a company does it?
Oh and by the way, their employee got murdered who was testified to speak at a hearing about copyright.
and that murderee's mom is publically resentful against and tweets anti-sam Altman content regularly. It tells me that founder Altman has clearly not demonstrated proper empathy, sympathy or repaired what should be an emotional easy case of delivering to the mom whatever she needs for her peace (or maybe he's actually guilty of complicit in crimes).
I'm curious what you're writing in your diary that's worse than blatantly admitting to fraud of this scale. He publicly misled people about OpenAI's "mission" as a nonprofit, while seeking to enrich himself to the tune of $1 billion(!!!) dollars.
Also, his entire diary was not in fact made public. The attorneys only quoted the parts that were relevant to the case, which pertained to OpenAI's transition from non-profit.
How about wiping out an entire civilization? Not even necessary to hide this thought in your diary if you have enough power. I've seen today - in fact any day of this year - much worse things than his diary thoughts.
Well, gee. When you put it like that, Hitler existed, so really we can't fault anybody for anything short of orchestrating the genocide of 12 million people.
By your logic you could argue that if anybody on this planet starves to death then Americans can be blamed and ‘engineered it’, since they had the economic means to prevent it. You’re essentially trying to argue that inaction is a positive act, which it is not as a matter of logic and law universally.
Your logic is laughable on its face, obviously.
Americans have no more duty to look after non-Americans than anybody else.
If I provide cancer drugs to someone, and then suddenly stop, am I to blame for them dying of cancer? That doesn't imply that I have a moral duty to provide the drugs. But if I am providing them and then withdraw them, then there is some responsibility on my part?
>>You’re essentially trying to argue that inaction is a positive act
You've assumed I have a certain position then argue against it, not against what I actually said.
Unilateral voluntary foreign aid is not in any way analogous to medical care that creates strict legal obligations when the doctor-patient relationship commences.
I wouldn’t want. I have enough. Not everyone is wanting money.
But it is not the point. The point is, when you take high moral ground and talk about bug problems to help humanity, and then your own diary exposes you as avaricious simpleton, the whole high moral ground crumbles. And you expose yourself as another grifter.
That’s what happened to Brockman. Although smart people could see these qualities in altman, brockman etcetera way before that happened
Why can't I want both earning 1B and do good things for the world? Unless his diary directly contradicts what he has said in public (like "I don't care about money"), I see zero moral issues here.
> The point is, when you take high moral ground and talk about bug problems to help humanity, and then your own diary exposes you as avaricious simpleton, the whole high moral ground crumbles. And you expose yourself as another grifter.
Unfortunately, this is now 90% of this space and it is now full of grifters which was not the case in 2010.
In the case of OpenAI, there were less grifters and they were dormant in 2016 and many were exposed in 2023 when Sam was fired and rehired afterwards and most of them infiltrated the company after 2023.
In 10 years time, after this upcoming financial crash, you will hear some of the former-employees after 2023 admitting that they were part of the grift and were never interested in AI in the first place.
"OpenAI was nothing without its people" except only if it meant getting a mansion or a yacht for the benefit of h̶u̶m̶a̶n̶i̶t̶y̶ themselves.
There’s nothing wrong or strange about aspiring to be a billionaire but writing about it in your diary like a hormonal teen girl reading fairy tales is a bad look.
It’s also difficult to take people seriously if they only care about money or, in Altman’s case, power. Single minded obsessiveness about these sorts of things tends to render people intellectually dishonest by definition.
Nonsense. What the hell would you do with 1B? Give it to charities maybe. Maybe set up an investment where dividends are paid to charity. Running out of ideas
Set up a nice investment vehicle with maybe 400m so I can get 1.6m in dividends a year which would be better enough to comfortably travel the world, have a private chef, someone who organized travel so I don't have to..
A nice 12 person yacht on the Mediterranean is 400k eur for 2 weeks (with staff) so I'd realize it's not enough and invest the rest so I could get comfy.
Along the way help friends and family, pay off mortgages, usually good stuff.
What's the point of that? That sounds like the most boring life. You want to rot away on a yacht? Private chef? Are you kidding?
Help family? Sure, although you don't need that much money for that. Friends? Ehh not very smart, just think about the changes in the friendships' authenticity.
Private chef, absolutely. Like some people rot away managing Linux as a desktop or putting together 3D printers instead of buying one that works and using a Mac, I enjoy food.
If anything less than $1B isn't enough then it is never enough. $1B is the new $100M thanks to ongoing currency debasement.
Also, there is something called "taxes" which is what makes anyone who has millions or billions to want even more money and the IRS will still come after you anywhere in the world.
Otherwise they have to renounce their citizenship and move to a tax haven.
You've run out of ideas already? Try harder!
What charities? Why? How much, to which ones? How involved with those charities are you going to be? What dent in history are you going to make with that billion? With or without your name attached. Build housing, cure cancer, feed the hungry, buy this simulator https://www.1940airterminal.org/news/liquidation-of-simulato...
I could be wrong but I think you could get started with all of that with a fraction of $1B.
Sure there is leisure and entertainment but if you want to use it to do something meaningful, with only 24 hours in a day you'll probably have much more money than time to use it well.
On the other hand 1B is really an arbitrary choice of number, so I think the reason he would choose this specific number definitely has more to do with arbitrary reasons (class, status), perhaps subconciously.
Personally I don't agree with the parent that everyone wants that much money. I think I can safely say not only am I content with much less but I also don't ever want to have the responsibility of having to manage that. Though I'm already saying that from a place of privilege where I don't need to worry about survival.
Furthermore, a lot of money almost certainly places you in an outlier group where normal laws and rights as formulated by humans don't apply the same. Assuming everyone has some empathy and sense of justice/righteousness, that should make them intrinsically not want to be in that group.
Completely missing the other costs associated with any of these things. If money was enough to “feed the hungry” Musk or Gates would have already done it. The real problem is systemic injustice, like governments stealing foreign aid that’s meant to go to the poor. Money can’t always solve these.
Time is more valuable than money and unless you have tons of time and space that simulator is just an expensive paperweight.
My point was that there isn't anything I could do with that money, and neither can the vast majority of people in the world. So I would immediately try to pass it on to people who have better use for it
Wishing for 1B is completely nonsensical if you understand what kind of money that is.
I would be a billionaire for about 5 minutes because I'd spend 95% of it making the lives of others better and still have enough left over that neither me nor any of my immediate family ever has to work again instead of hoarding it like the monsters who end up actually having a billion dollars.
What is the point of your comment? It is hard for me to read it in another way than "I am very virtuous", which might be true (well done you!) but usually isn't a thing people post about themselves in a discussion forum...
> There is nothing wrong with wanting 1B. Anybody who said they wouldn't want it is lying.
You said:
> I'd spend 95% of it making the lives of others better
Again, well done you. And... I don't think that's a counter example? Being this virtuous, wouldn't you love to give away a billion? Wouldn't you enjoy it very much? You could write comments about it and people would upvote you!
I do not want a billion dollars, there is no ethical way to get a billion dollars. If I accidentally had a billion dollars I would get rid of the billion dollars as quickly as possible.
The op thinks that I, as well as most of the other responses to them, are liars
> there is no ethical way to get a billion dollars.
I don't buy that at all. One ethical way is to marry someone random who later becomes a billionnaire. Another is to eg create Bitcoin. And I suspect there are ethical ways to create a business that earns a whole lot of money.
What unethical things did Yvon Chouinard do to get his billions? Chuck Feeney? What about Mackenzie Scott (formerly Bezos)? Hansjörg Wyss? Craig Newmark of Craigslist?
Regardless of what else they did, they hoarded enough wealth to live hundreds of lifetime without ever wanting for anything while there are people on this planet who are starving, homeless, or can't afford basic medical care.
Being a billionaire itself is unethical. They are excessively greedy to the point of evil. If they weren't they would have stopped hoarding wealth hundreds of millions of dollars sooner.
If I had enough food to feed a hundred thousand people for the rest of their lives, more than anyone could ever eat in thousands of lifetimes, and I kept hoarding more and more food while people were starving you would ask what the fuck is wrong with me, there's no way I'll ever need all that food. I would rightly be called obsessive, greedy, and a sociopath. Add one layer of abstraction and we hold these monsters up as heroes.
- Yvon Chouinard said he "didn't drive Lexuses". Yes he was a billionnaire, but he lived a simple life, and his net worth was tied in the stock of the company. He has since given most of it away.
- Mackenzie Bezos gave away $26 billion, more than half of her net worth, in the past 6 years. I'm sure she'll continue.
It's not exactly easy to spend so much money _meaningfully_. "Giving it away" sounds simple, but really it's a lot of hard work.
You seem extremely attached to your point of view that all the billionnaires are bad people and that you're a good person. I have a negative visceral reaction to people who loudly proclaim their own moral superiority. I don't think all the billionnaires are that bad, and tbh I have trouble believing you're such good a person. How much have you given to charity?
I haven't said anything about my own morality other than that I don't want a billion dollars.
If you really want to know, I give away more than 10% of my income every year to charity. In just the past decade I've given away about 20% of my net worth, and I'm not even close to set for life. That's more than all but a few billionaires will give away in their lifetimes, and I promise you that I need that 20% much more than any billionaire needs 90% of theirs. If I lose my job I'm fucked, if they never make another dollar they can live thousands of lifetimes without changing their standard of living in any meaningful way.
Does that make me a good person? No.
It absolutely makes them bad people though.
Giving away money doesn't make you a good person, but hoarding it makes you a bad person.
Every billionaire is a policy failure. It's not a question of equity, the issue is that no one human should be that powerful. It's very obvious that its leading to the US's rather quick and colorful decline. A small cohort of very powerful people are moving elections and policy to enrich themselves, everyone else be damned.
Even assuming all of this is true, nothing you've said means it's wrong to want a billion dollars. As described, your issue is with the system that makes it possible to get it.
I just don’t understand why a non-profit was allowed to do this. Does this not set a precedent that non-profit doesn’t actually mean anything? You can just use a favorable structure until it’s time to enrich yourself.
I think it would be helpful for you to clarify which part of the chain you found objectionable:
- in 2015, OpenAI was founded as a Delaware nonprofit
- in 2017, OpenAI discovered the scaling laws and realized they needed far more compute (and thus money) than they had initially anticipated
- that discovery precipitated a series of negotiations between the founders on how to restructure OpenAI to raise more money for compute, ultimately resulting in Musk’s departure when the other founders would not give him control
- in 2018, OpenAI attempted to dramatically increase its fundraising despite Elon ending his contributions, but raised only $50M of its $100M goal
- in 2019, OpenAI created a capped-profit subsidiary in order to attract funding from commercial entities
- the nonprofit hired an independent assessor to value its IP, and then transferred that IP to the for-profit for fair value (around $60 million in 2019)
- the OpenAI nonprofit received a right to 100x capped return on its IP investment, or $6B, once the for-profit began making a profit. The nonprofit also received the right to the residual profit after all future investors reached their caps
- in 2019, OpenAI’s capped-profit received $1B in investment from Microsoft. OpenAI later received $2B from Microsoft in 2021 and $10B in 2023 as compute scaling continued
- Microsoft received a cap of 20x on its $1B investment, and 6x on its $2B and $10B investments, for a total of $92B target redemption
- in 2025, OpenAI’s for-profit entity recapitalized from a capped-profit entity with residuals flowing to the nonprofit to a traditional public benefit corporation with traditional equity
- in exchange for the residual (and 100x profit cap on the original $60M transfer) the nonprofit received a 26% equity stake in the for-profit. That stake is currently valued at around $200B
All of the above is from the record in Musk v. Altman, thanks to which we now have all the details. The upshot for the nonprofit is that it transferred IP worth around $60M in 2019 for rights to $6B in future profit, and then ended up with $200B in equity after the recapitalization. I see a lot of people in this thread assuming that the nonprofit no longer exists, which is not true.
Thanks for listing all this out. I took issue with it in theory, but now that I see it written out, I don't find any of it objectionable. People act we though the nonprofit doesn't exist anymore.
I'm curious why you think that creating a for-profit subsidiary is objectionable, since it is extremely common for large nonprofits. A good example for this forum would be Mozilla, but many more were mentioned during the trial.
Also curious what conflicts of interest you have in mind.
Just because other organizations do it doesn't make it not objectionable, and there have been many threads on HN criticizing Mozilla's structure along similar lines.
In this case, my understanding is that e.g. Altman is on the nonprofit board and also makes big $$$ from the for-profit, which seems like a pretty big conflict of interest.
HN is of course not a monolith, but from my recollection most of the frustration and criticism w/r/t Mozilla is about its product strategy and executive team, not its corporate structure. Some other examples of nonprofits with for-profit subsidiaries include National Geographic, the AARP, and most research universities.
On Altman, the trial showed that Altman does not have any equity in the for-profit. He does have some indirect exposure through his investments in YC, since YC has a small position in OpenAI.
- in 2025, OpenAI’s for-profit entity recapitalized from a capped-profit entity with residuals flowing to the nonprofit to a traditional public benefit corporation with traditional equity
This is the egregious part. Before full for profit conversion it was worth $300B. Then after $850B.
A true fiduciary would set an auction and that would set the price for for profit valuation. And then all existing investors would keep the value of their positions, but would be diluted because capped profit is worth much less than unlimited profit and residuals.
But, they sold it to themselves for a bargain basement price. The nonprofit lost out on $300B or so. Maybe more.
It was not an arm’s length transaction. It was self-dealing.
I may not be fully understanding it, but if the value went from $300B to $850B because of the conversion, then you can’t claim that the additional value was stolen from the nonprofit. As long as the entity was unconverted, there was a limit to what the market would value it at. Is this off?
worse than that is the $60 million sale price, which was comically and absurdly low. Elon himself said he was willing to buy it for significantly more than that and the fact that it wasn't able to go to the highest bidder just shows that it was bullshit
Elon's purchase offer was in 2025, after the success of ChatGPT showed that OpenAI's IP (much if not most of it developed after 2019) could be commercially valuable. I think it is also debatable whether Elon's purchase offer was in good faith.
It was not clear in 2019 that OpenAI's IP would ultimately be worth billions. That was well before the current AI boom.
Wait, no, not at all. A non-profit shouldn’t have to take the highest bidder regardless. The whole _point_ of a non-profit is to act beyond purely short-term financial gains.
“Elon buying this doesn’t align with the mission” is a completely normal, reasonable, and healthy response for most non-profits.
What’s great is that we don’t need to speculate about a counter factual. He did end up building a chatbot! Whose defining differentiating feature is revenge porn.
But the decision is still subject to heavy scrutiny; in fact, more than with normal for profit corporations. It does not seem like the board acted in the best interests of the nonprofit here, they acted in their own.
The OpenAI non-profit is now one of the biggest non-profits in dollar-denominated assets. If the goal was to make the non-profit really big and well-funded then that seems on track. But not clear to me what it would do to advance its mission.
They seem to think they need trillions in investment to reach AGI. Putting aside whether reaching AGI is feasible, it seems pretty clear how this move enables them to advance their mission, at least in their eyes.
This is super valuable, thank you so much. It makes it clear just how misinformed 99% of HN seems to be when ranting about how Altman perpetrated the greatest theft in history or some such bullshit (conveniently always failing to mention that he holds NO equity in OpenAI, despite how easy it would have been for him to do so).
I find it unsettling that a company who wants to eradicate the middle class's ability to make a living, possibly bring about the singularity (I don't think they'll accomplish it, but they want to), and are actively creating one of the most massive bubbles we've ever seen is somehow a "public benefit" company. Absolutely nothing they're doing is to the public's benefit.
How can something be both a bubble and also eradicate the middle class's ability to make a living? There are reasonable people making the case for both of these things, that investment in AI will fall flat and that AI will be too powerful. Coalition forces are pushing them together into an anti-AI camp, but there's a contradiction. Is it too powerful or not powerful enough?
It can represent a few peoples interests, who aren't middle class, and eradicate the middle class. AI can fall flat in its affect and benefit for most people, while helping a few people. It can thusly be powerful for a few people, and not powerful enough for most people. (I feel we may see special models that most people will never access, while a few get those most powerful models).
Did that answer your questions and address the contradictions?
You would not, and I would say what I am saying doesn't support nor deny a bubble's existence. I think that would be an error in thinking to conclude what I said supports bubbles.
Other examples include Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation, the latter of which pays taxes on the money it gets from Google for default search engine placement, and the Smithsonian gift shop, which is a common pattern for museums all over the country. Novo Nordisk is another example, maker of Ozempic, and it’s the richest foundation in the world because it spun off a for-profit that then went public.
IRS requires nonprofits to pay taxes on “unrelated business income” and spinning it off to a for-profit subsidiary is the least risky way of managing that revenue.
Most nonprofits don’t have a mission that would benefit from a transition or a trillion dollar product to sell. There would be no real way to profit they wanted to.
This case was the first of its kind and it was never tested if OpenAI breached their charitable mission and the case was dismissed due to the statute of limitations.
Other than researchers, nobody from big tech would ever see themselves wanting to work at a charity / non-profit. The moment the VCs came into the picture then all the grifters poured in and AGI meant IPO.
> You can just use a favorable structure until it’s time to enrich yourself.
Are you saying researchers are less interested in quality of life than other people? If this was true, frontier labs wouldn’t need to offer 7 digit compensation packages to their researchers.
Nonprofit doesn't mean anything, since people can just route the profits into salaries. It's just another legacy regulation that may have once once had a societally-constructive purpose that wealthy people just use as one of the array of financial tools to help implement their latest scams. IMO, here are no legitimate nonprofits.
Western countries have been utterly strangled by nonprofits. Governments fund them with tax money in order to lobby themselves for legislation that financially benefits individuals in government and their donors. Obama even expanded the rules in the US to allow the government to unconstitutionally fund religious groups to accomplish functions that belong in government.
They should all be either reformed so that their internal bylaws and compensation are strictly regulated or probably preferably, they should simply be destroyed. If you only pay taxes on your profits (and we get rid of legal vehicles to hide profits) and your employees are obligated to pay taxes on their incomes, there's no need for a nonprofit status. If nonprofits want to engage in business (religions included), let them pay taxes. If they engage in charity, they won't have anything to tax.
> Western countries have been utterly strangled by nonprofits
To expand, there are two major problems with nonprofits in Western nations these days:
1. Governments use them as a way to do things that they themselves are not allowed to do ("it's private charities that do this!", ignoring the fact that the charities get >90% of their revenue from government grants)
2. Like you mentioned, the government grants to nonprofit back to politicians' campaign funds pipeline. Utterly egregious.
> Obama even expanded the rules in the US to allow the government to unconstitutionally fund religious groups to accomplish functions that belong in government
I wasn't aware of this being a big concern; more the other way around, like in my point 1.
One reform I would make would be to limit tax breaks to actual charitable activity within an organization, instead of a blanket tax break to the whole organization. For example if a Church/Hospital runs a soup kitchen and homeless shelter, those resources should be tax free, but maybe the rest of their activities shouldn't be by default.
Another reform I would make would be around independent governance and removing donor control of charities to reduce the number of sham Rich Guy foundations.
> Another reform I would make would be around independent governance and removing donor control of charities to reduce the number of sham Rich Guy foundations.
This one is tough. I mean, look at the Clinton Foundation. One reason to believe that $1 there is more effective than somewhere else is _because_ the Clinton’s are closely involved.
Of course, you get massive donations there because people want to influence the Clintons and/or _through_ the Clintons. Would those people / states donate otherwise? Would they donate to _better_ organizations? Maybe! Maybe not!
* Also I’m not saying the Clinton Foundation is more/less effective. You’re almost certainly better donating to GiveDirectly, but it’s not on its face ridiculous to think that they, specifically, could effect a _different_ type of change than others would have access to/influence over.
building products on top of their api makes these drama weekends terrifying. really makes you realize how fragile your whole stack is when a board decides to act up.
Or when sociopaths are in charge, and the board tries to fix that, but other sociopaths work together to overrule the board. (And wtf is that anyway, overriding the board? Why do we even have boards of directors if rich, powerful assholes can just do whatever they want?)
Obviously OpenAI betrayed their stated mandate by going to the largely closed-source API-access business model, which is the one that Anthropic, Google, and xAI also adopted, i.e. the high-margin hosted model businesses, while DeepSeek, Alibaba/Qwen, Baidu/ERNIE, and Tencent/Hunyuan are breaking that model by releasing various open weight models.
I think the Chinese labs have a fundamentally different viewpoint: they’re building infrastructure, and looking at it more like how a US corporation might like having some of its employees making core contributions to compiler ecosystems like LLVM/clang and so on. The payoff is down the road, partially reputational, but also having a great compiler is good for everyone in the computational business world. The rentier-finance capitalist instead wants to privatize the compiler and extract rents for access.
The thing about infrastructure is this: you don’t get a direct financial return on investment in infrastructure (think roads, which make other economic activity possible) unless you have some ridiculously corrupt system controlled by rent-collectors (which is how the US electricity grid and fiber optic backbone works). That’s all the major US LLM providers are doing: trying to collect rents on systems that were built using the global human knowledge base as inputs.
At the very least OpenAI should be releasing their older models on a steady timetable. Sure it might reduce some revenue streams but it would be good for their reputation.
>So many people were trying to sign the petition at once that it actually crashed Google Docs
I still wonder how much peer pressure was behind that. Like, what if you think Sam is a scumbag and you're glad he's gone, but people are waving this petition in your face. What would you do? It would be really bad for you if the emperor returned and you were one of the few who didn't sign it.
Also, going by this video, the first order of business for an AGI should be finding a cure for hair loss.
Money is the most honest transaction, if people are paying money to anthropic it means its solving their pain. Its the same reason OpenAI and others are copying Anthropic.
This is some late-stage capitalist cope. Money goes to the person who can hoodwink people into thinking their product will do something they care about, not the person with the product that actually does something people want. There are a litany of examples of people swearing up and down by products that have been scientifically proven to __DO NOTHING__. The correlation between popularity and quality is tenuous AT BEST.
People discount Google/Deepmind but a lot of the original research was done there including inventing transformers which form the basis of the other AI companies.
If anything, the amount of original and foundational research at Google is a black mark against their position now. They blew a hell of a lead.
I’m willing to discount what they did almost a decade ago (“Attention is All You Need” was 2017) in an industry that moves this quickly. The execution of an Anthropic matters more now.
So firing a grifter means it would kill the company? Doesn't that mean the company is grifting? If no one else can possibly lead the supposedly the most important company, with billions/trillions (?) of so called value, do you have a good company and product?
Or do I forget that this guy sleeps with an Ayn Rand doll tucked under his arms?
ChatGPT or CoPilot were awesome products at the time. I do not use them anymore these days. But to me it felt never like i was abused. And Investment into companies is what it is, a risk. But the results remain forever, whoever wins.
Not a fan of Altman but the devil you know is a powerful argument. If you believe a CEO/Founder to be a grifter-position at its core (fake it till you make it etc etc), retaining the best grifter you can find is the optimal play.
Not feeling like 1 hour of my Sunday is worth listening to this, do anyone have the non-clickbait answers to the two "previews" mentioned in the description?
> Greg explains how the original Napa offsite produced the three-step technical plan OpenAI has followed for a decade and the real reason OpenAI had to abandon its pure nonprofit structure
What was the technical plan and what was the "real reason" they couldn't achieve their original goals?
That three point list is verbatim the extent of the technical plan mentioned.
> what was the "real reason" they couldn't achieve their original goals?
Paraphrasing, "we needed more money for compute and didn't think we could get enough as a non-profit". Brockman's diary might be a stronger indicator of the real real reason, though.
I imagine if they stayed nonprofit, they would’ve survived, but not convinced investors to give them enough $$$ and datacenters to stay the most popular (above Google).
> I think the non-profit has around 25% ownership of something that is around a trillion dollars of on-paper money.
But the purpose of a non profit is not to maximise profit in a for profit investment.
How well is non profit doing at furthering its goals? It formerly had the purpose of “safely” ensuring artificial intelligence benefits all of humanity. It looks like it gave up on that so its staff could be incredibly rich.
Do you not think money provides some ability to achieve goals? Fund raising is an integral part of most non-profits.
But you ignored the part about influence, would an OpenAI that did not scale up and had no world beating models have much of a say in how AI gets developed
This is not to say that I think they are doing everything right, but I see people bitter that they didn't take the path towards forgotten irrelivance.
What would you reccommend that they should have done that would still lead to them being relevant to the world development of AI?
Frankly the non-profit has failed. OpenAI is one of the least open of the AI companies (Anthropic is a bit worse). If it wasn't for the labs in China the dream of an actual open ai system would be dead.
I feel like people don’t give OpenAI enough credit for the early papers they did publish. Those are what showed the way that everyone else has built on.
I can easily guess also that at the beginning they were more thinking like a research project that they could create something but would like quantum computing today, not really of real world used.
And one things started to become real, they realized the financing potential of the thing, that they were seated on a gold mine and would be stupid of them to create that and not profit much more of it.
00:00:00 Introduction
00:00:49 Meeting Sam Altman and Starting OpenAI
00:02:40 Building the Founding Team
00:04:25 DeepMind's Lead Over OpenAI
00:04:54 The Change from a Pure Non-Profit
00:06:05 Breakthrough Moments at OpenAI
00:08:22 What Dota 2 Meant for OpenAI
00:10:04 Reasoning Versus Prediction
00:11:59 Tensions Grow at OpenAI
00:15:44 Sam Altman's Firing
00:17:49 Greg Quits OpenAI
00:19:56 Sam Explores Deal with Microsoft's Satya
00:20:28 OpenAI Employees Sign Petition for Altman's Return
00:23:43 Ilya Sutskever Leaves OpenAI
00:24:59 Lessons Learned in Leadership after Sam Ousting
00:28:22 The Thing Ilya Said that Greg Can't Forget
00:32:22 Is AI Going Parabolic?
00:33:24 How Much of OpenAI's Code is Written by AI?
00:36:21 Are AI Chatbots Just Telling Us What We Want to Hear?
00:38:06 The Global AI Race to Reach AGI
00:38:40 What Happens if US Doesn't Reach AGI First?
00:39:49 Are Competing Countries Stealing AI Advancements from U.S?
00:40:38 Why ChatGPT No Longer Shows Reasoning
00:41:47 The Finite Constraints of Compute
00:43:38 On Investing Early in Data Centers
00:46:31 The Future of Data Center Specialization
00:47:52 How OpenAI Will Decide Whose Queries to Serve
00:49:08 OpenAI on Consumer vs Enterprise Models
00:53:05 Data Centers in Space?
01:00:56 What Should AI Regulation Look Like?
01:04:33 The Future of AI-Powered Entrepreneurship
01:04:44 AI and Job Loss
01:07:15 The Skills Young People Should Invest In
01:11:30 What Does Success Look Like For You?
isn't it still an odd choice for a nonprofit? it's hard to imagine a world without OpenAI and ChatGPT now, but at some point they decided being the best is most important. and presumably most profitable, since why just need a little more money?
Maybe, but somehow I doubt the American Heart Association is planning to open a chain of pork barbecue restaurants to support its mission against heart disease.
> Not feeling like 1 hour of my Sunday is worth listening to this, do anyone have the non-clickbait answers to the two "previews" mentioned in the description?
I know HN is built around mostly not reading the articles linked but how about you click on the link and surprise, there is already exactly another link providing what you're asking for.
That quote of his is relevant for everything Brockman says. That’s the lens through which he views the world.
Also, this is not the first time I’ve seen HN staff inexplicably rush to defend Altman or Brockman - I wonder why that is. Maybe stick to being objective moderators instead of displaying blatant bias in favour of people previously associated with YC (or perhaps current YC investments). It’s actually laughable how hands off you guys are when it comes to outrageous or flippant comments about Trump or Jews, for example, but I’m getting an @ for literally quoting somebody.
As anyone can see, there are plenty of criticisms of Brockman and OpenAI in this very thread (some of them even reference the very thing you referenced), as there are in many other HN threads all the time. We have no problem with that.
The problem with your particular comment is the caricatured/mocking portrayal of it and the mike-drop/this-explains-everything energy to it, which you explicitly invoked in your reply to me.
Any time you assert that a single quote from a long time ago explains everything about a person or event, you’re on weak ground on HN. The truth is never that simple, no matter who it’s about, and the guidelines explicitly ask us to avoid snark and shallow dismissals, because HN’s entire purpose is to host discussions that are better than that.
> Any time you assert that a single quote from a long time ago
Not my main point, but his quote was timely enough that it was used as an exhibit in a major trial only a few weeks ago. Suggesting that it reflects unfairly or inaccurately on his current views has no evidentiary basis.
My main point: I routinely see 'snarky' one liners on this website. Go find literally any thread involving Israel or something deemed 'fascist' by the hivemind and you'll find them by the dozens, many of which are heavily upvoted given that they appear at the top; meanwhile, legitimate (in the sense that they have clearly been thought-out at length and present a position that is at least prima facie logically defensible) comments that go against the groupthink are invariably flagged.
I mean honestly - you guys do know you have a major problem with the way flagging comments works, right? If you earnestly want to deal with snarky comments and foment deeper conversation, that's a laudable goal but what you have currently is a particular demographic of left-leaning social democrat types that dominate this website that flags every comment they disagree with, whether it's 'snarky' or not. I've seen it with my own comments and I've done it to others because hey, I'll play the game if you guys set it up that way (and no doubt if the website had predominantly far right users it would be the obverse of the same problem). I'm not saying left-wing people are the only problem, just that on this site that's the way the demographics are.
So, this comment is partly irrelevant (about Brockman), and partly a whataboutism, but my point about flagging stands and if you are serious about the level of discourse here you guys really (truly) ought to think seriously about how to deal with it, because I've had plenty of comments that took genuine time and effort to think about and write, considered and acknowledged and addressed opposing viewpoints, and were nevertheless flagged and removed because I wasn't on the anti-Israel bandwagon or whatever the topic was. So why bother investing time into writing a comment that is just going to get flagged anyway? I may as well be snarky given that it takes .01% of the effort and time if it's going to be flagged anyway.
The site's flagging system in its current iteration incentivises being snarky.
The “quote” you cited was not a quote. It was a caricature of a quote. That’s the entire thing I’m objecting to, because that is clearly against the guidelines.
Everything else you’re writing is irrelevant to this point.
If you want to have a serious discussion about appropriate conduct on this site, you first need to start by showing you’re willing to respect the site and the guidelines.
> Whatever AGI is, it "AGI" is not glueing a load of text prediction machines together.
K don't think it would be that simple either, but for now we simply don't know.
I would like to think that what I consider my intelligence will always be distinguishable from a cleverly built harness wrapped around text prediction, but I can't say for sure that's guaranteed.
Oh this bubble started in the buzzword and bullshit stage, no argument there. I'm just not sure how you can be so certain LLMs will have no place if a system we'd consider AGI, most inventions do require a long list of failures and tweaks before it finally works.
This article explains what's missing in terms of two kinds of complexity that oppose: Shannon complexity vs. Kolmogorov complexity.
It introduces the opposition by an example of driving the value of pi as decimal number, which has no pattern and high complexity, and a formula for deriving pi that does have a pattern with low complexity, then observing that mind can work from the patternless high-complexity back to the patterned low-complexity without prior examples, while AI can't.
LLMs encode and retrieve patterns in the training data, and doing so can connect data to the terminology of known principle, but mind can observe inconsistencies in data and to reason from first principles to resolve the inconsistency.
The distinction between these two modes can seem blurry as AI can traverse the patterns of the known in ways that are extraordinarily revealing, but it's not structured to reason about the unknown.
Inference is not sufficient for reason.
For example, a conventional algorithm can search for patterns in text at a scale many orders of magnitude beyond a mind's capacity, and this can be very revealing, but to do so this algorithm need not read the text with comprehension.
Regarding the question: can genAI be enhanced to reason? The answer is assumed to be "no", due to the categorical opposition of the two kinds of complexity and the lack of understanding of structures within genAI to handle the reasoning.
Read the article, which includes other examples including a jump from Newtonian to Einstein physics in the history of astronomy, and a noodling on how to talk about the edge of the unknowable in AI.
reply