this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
1328 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

59555 readers
4537 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 358 points 1 month ago (3 children)

You know guys, I'm starting to think what we heard about Altman when he was removed a while ago might actually have been real.

/s

[–] ravhall@discuss.online 147 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I wonder if all those people who supported him like the taste of their feet.

[–] Boxscape@lemmy.sdf.org 107 points 1 month ago

like the taste of their feet.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 317 points 1 month ago (13 children)

There’s an alternate timeline where the non-profit side of the company won, Altman the Conman was booted and exposed, and OpenAI kept developing machine learning in a way that actually benefits actual use cases.

Cancer screenings approved by a doctor could be accurate enough to save so many lives and so much suffering through early detection.

Instead, Altman turned a promising technology into a meme stock with a product released too early to ever fix properly.

[–] patatahooligan@lemmy.world 65 points 1 month ago (2 children)

No, there isn't really any such alternate timeline. Good honest causes are not profitable enough to survive against the startup scams. Even if the non-profit side won internally, OpenAI would just be left behind, funding would go to its competitors, and OpenAI would shut down. Unless you mean a radically different alternate timeline where our economic system is fundamentally different.

[–] rsuri@lemmy.world 55 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I mean wikipedia managed to do it. It just requires honest people to retain control long enough. I think it was allowed to happen in wikipedia's case because the wealthiest/greediest people hadn't caught on to the potential yet.

There's probably an alternate timeline where wikipedia is a social network with paid verification by corporate interests who write articles about their own companies and state-funded accounts spreading conspiracy theories.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] kippinitreal@lemmy.world 161 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Putting my tin foil hat on... Sam Altman knows the AI train might be slowing down soon.

The OpenAI brand is the most valuable part of the company right now, since the models from Google, Anthropic, etc. can beat or match what ChatGPT is, but they aren't taking off coz they aren't as cool as OpenAI.

The business models to train & run models is not sustainable. If there is any money to be made it is NOW, while the speculation is highest. The nonprofit is just getting in the way.

This could be wishful thinking coz fuck corporate AI, but no one can deny AI is in a speculative bubble.

[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 98 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Take the hat off. This was the goal. Whoops, gotta cash in and leave! I'm sure it's super great, but I'm gone.

[–] kippinitreal@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's an excellent point! Why oh why would a tech bro start a non-profit? Its always been PR.

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It honestly just never occurred to me that such a transformation was allowed/possible. A nonprofit seems to imply something charitable, though obviously that's not the true meaning of it. Still, it would almost seem like the company benefits from the goodwill that comes with being a nonprofit but then gets to transform that goodwill into real gains when they drop the act and cease being a nonprofit.

I don't really understand most of this shit though, so I'm probably missing some key component that makes it make a lot more sense.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 133 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I'm sure they were dead weight. I trust open AI completely and all tech gurus named Sam. Btw, what happened to that Crypto guy? He seemed so nice.

[–] utopiah@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago

I hope I won't undermine your entirely justified trust but Altman is also a crypto guy, cf Worldcoin. /$

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JustARaccoon@lemmy.world 133 points 1 month ago (7 children)

I'm confused, how can a company that's gained numerous advantages from being non-profit just switch to a for-profit model? Weren't a lot of the advantages (like access to data and scraping) given with the stipulation that it's for a non-profit? This sounds like it should be illegal to my brain

[–] berno@lemmy.world 54 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Careful you're making too much sense here and overlapping with Elmo's view on the subject

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 43 points 1 month ago

I’m confused, how can a company that’s gained numerous advantages from being non-profit just switch to a for-profit model

Money

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 42 points 1 month ago (7 children)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago

Can't do crimes if you're rich. It's in the Constitution

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 120 points 1 month ago (6 children)

They should be required to change their name

[–] dan@upvote.au 108 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

It's amusing. Meta's AI team is more open than "Open"AI ever was - they publish so many research papers for free, and the latest versions of Llama are very capable models that you can run on your own hardware (if it's powerful enough) for free as long as you don't use it in an app with more than 700 million monthly users.

[–] merari42@lemmy.world 73 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It's the famous "As long as your not Google, Amazon or Apple" licence.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 104 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Canceled my sub as a means of protest. I used it for research and testing purposes and 20$ wasn't that big of a deal. But I will not knowingly support this asshole if whatever his company produces isn't going to benefit anyone other than him and his cronies. Voting with our wallets may be the very last vestige of freedom we have left, since money equals speech.

I hope he gets raped by an irate Roomba with a broomstick.

[–] Silic0n_Alph4@lemmy.world 49 points 1 month ago

Whoa, slow down there bruv! Rape jokes aren’t ok - that Roomba can’t consent!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 103 points 1 month ago (19 children)

AI is the ultimate Enshitification of the world.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 97 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

Altman downplayed the major shakeup.

"Leadership changes are a natural part of companies

Is he just trying to tell us he is next?

/s

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 95 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The restructuring could turn the already for-profit company into a more traditional startup and give CEO Sam Altman even more control — including likely equity worth billions of dollars.

I can see why he would want that, yes. We're supposed to ooo and ahh at a technical visionary, who is always ultimately a money guy executive who wants more money and more executive power.

[–] toynbee@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I saw an interesting video about this. It's outdated (from ten months ago, apparently) but added some context that I, at least, was missing - and that also largely aligns with what you said. Also, though it's not super evident in this video, I think the presenter is fairly funny.

https://youtu.be/L6mmzBDfRS4

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 85 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They had an opportunity to deal with this earlier this year when he was FIRED

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago (4 children)

The actual employees threatened to resign en masse, because the employees own equity in the company and want this dogshit move too.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 75 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I really don't understand why they're simultaneously arguing that they need access to copyrighted works in order to train their AI while also dropping their non-profit status. If they were at least ostensibly a non-profit, they could pretend that their work was for the betterment of humanity or whatever, but now they're basically saying, "exempt us from this law so we can maximize our earnings." ...and, honestly, our corrupt legislators wouldn't have a problem with that were it not for the fact that bigger corporations with more lobbying power will fight against it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 71 points 1 month ago (2 children)

And there it goes the tech company way, i.e. to shit.

[–] Sabata11792@ani.social 30 points 1 month ago (2 children)

They speed ran becoming an evil corporation.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ah, but one asshole gets very rich in the process, so all is well in the world.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com 64 points 1 month ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 63 points 1 month ago (29 children)

Sounds like another WeWork or Theranos in the making, except we already know the product doesn't do what it promises.

load more comments (29 replies)
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 56 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What! A! Surprise!

I'm shocked, I tell you, totally and utterly shocked by this turn of events!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mosscap@slrpnk.net 39 points 1 month ago (2 children)

OpenAI is going to crash so hard.

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 month ago (3 children)

We don't need them. They're already out of ammo. Just make them release the weights on the way out.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Looks like it was a long game, and Altman didn't just win, that fucker WON!

ALT-MAN? Holy shit!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago

Oh shit! Here we go. At least we didn't hand them 20 years of personal emails or direct interfamily communications.

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago (4 children)

just came to me that his Alt-man name is quite fitting for AI

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] sudo42@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago

Sam Altman is demonstrating the power of AI. He’s showing how a single CEO can fire the entire company and continue to develop the product to be even better than when humans were involved.

“OpenAI. No real humans involved!” (TM)

load more comments
view more: next ›