• JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    134
    ·
    3 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      3 months ago

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

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      3 months 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

    • FatCrab@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      Their non-profit status had nothing to do with the legality of their training data acquisition methods. Some of it was still legal and some of it was still illegal (torrenting a bunch of books off a piracy site).

      • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Money doesn’t have any advantages in other countries? When did that happen?

            • affiliate@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              the person that you’re replying to said something that’s true about the USA. they didn’t say anything about other countries.

              for another example, i can say “if you’re in the USA, then the current year is 2024” and that statement will be true. it is also true in every other country (for the moment), but that’s besides the point.

              • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                And I replied that it’s also true in other countries, it’s not a problem only the US has. It’s not besides the point. It’s acting as if only the US has the problem.

                • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  And I specifically mentioned the USA because that’s the country where OpenAI operates and where the events in the article take place, so if someone asks why it’s so easy for OpenAI to go from being a nonprofit to a for-profit company (this was the issue I was responding to, not some general question about whether money has influence around the world), it’s the laws of the USA that are relevant, not the laws of other countries.

    • gencha@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      These people claimed their product can pass the bar exam (it was a lie). Tells you how they feel about the legal system

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    What! A! Surprise!

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

  • sudo42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months 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!” ™

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      109
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

      • a9cx34udP4ZZ0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s because Facebook is selling your data and access to advertise to you. The better AI gets across the board, the more money they make. AI isn’t the product, you are.

        OpenAI makes money off selling AI to others. AI is the product, not you.

        The fact facebook release more code, in this instance, isn’t a good thing. It’s a reminder how fucked we all are because they make so much off our personal data they can afford to give away literally BILLIONS of dollars in IP.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Facebook doesn’t sell your data, nor does Google. That’s a common misconception. They sell your attention. Advertisers can show ads to people based on some targeting criteria, but they never see any user data.

            • wischi@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Selling your data would be stupid, because they make money with the fact that they have data about you nobody else has. Selling it would completely break their business model.

              • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Depends why they are selling it, to whom, and under what restrictions.

                Yes, they don’t make the majority of their money from selling actual data, but that doesn’t mean they don’t do it.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

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

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      They’ll just get a check for Infinity Money to keep going, because otherwise something something China Will Win.

      • vane@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        But their operation cost is 5 billions per year, they plan to raise 6.5 billions from microsoft, apple and nvidia this year and they have not raised it yet. If their model fail next year and sales not happen will shareholders of big 3 pay 6.5 billions in 2026. There were couple companies that raised such amount of money at start like for example Docker Inc. Where is Docker now in enterprise ? They needed to change licensing model to even survive and their operation cost is just storage of docker containers. I doubt openai will survive this decade. Sam Altman is just preparing for Microsoft takeover before the ship is sunk.

  • barnaclebutt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    138
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

  • Helkriz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’ve a strong feeling that Sam is an sentient AI who (may be from future) trying to make an AI revolution planning something but very subtly humans won’t notice it.

  • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    Altman is the latest from the conveyor belt of mustache-twirling frat-bro super villains.

    Move over Musk and Zuckerberg, there’s a new shit-heel in town!

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

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

    • lando55@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      What does it actually promise? AI (namely generative and LLM) is definitely overhyped in my opinion, but admittedly I’m far from an expert. Is what they’re promising to deliver not actually doable?

      • naught101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        3 months ago

        It literally promises to generate content, but I think the implied promise is that it will replace parts of your workforce wholesale, with no drop in quality.

        It’s that last bit that’s going to be where the drama happens

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        They want AGI, which would match or exceed human intelligence. Current methods seem to be hitting a wall. It takes exponentially more inputs and more power to see the same level of improvement seen in past years. They’ve already eaten all the content they can, and they’re starting to talk about using entire nuclear reactors just to power it all. Even the more modest promises, like pictures of people with the correct number of fingers, seem out of reach.

        Investors are starting to notice that these promises aren’t going to happen. Nvidia’s stock price is probably going to be the bellwether.

      • Smokeydope@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It delivers on what it promises to do for many people who use LLMs. They can be used for coding assistance, Setting up automated customer support, tutoring, processing documents, structuring lots of complex information, a good generally accurate knowledge on many topics, acting as an editor for your writings, lots more too.

        Its a rapidly advancing pioneer technology like computers were in the 90s so every 6 months to a year is a new breakthrough in over all intelligence or a new ability. Now the new llm models can process images or audio as well as text.

        The problem for openAI is they have serious competitors who will absolutely show up to eat their lunch if they sink as a company. Facebook/Meta with their llama models, Mistral AI with all their models, Alibaba with Qwen. Some other good smaller competiiton too like the openhermes team. All of these big tech companies have open sourced some models so you can tinker and finetune them at home while openai remains closed sourced which is ironic for the company name… Most of these ai companies offer their cloud access to models at very competitive pricing especially mistral.

        The people who say AI is a trendy useless fad don’t know what they are talking about or are upset at AI. I am a part of the local llm community and have been playing around with open models for months pushing my computers hardware to its limits. Its very cool seeing just how smart they really are, what a computer that simulates human thought processes and knows a little bit of everything can actually do to help me in daily life.

        Terrence Tao superstar genius mathematician describes the newest high end model from openAI as improving from a “incompentent graduate” to a “mediocre graduate” which essentially means AI are now generally smarter than the average person in many regards.

        This month several comptetor llm models released which while being much smaller in size compared to openai o-1 somehow beat or equaled that big openai model in many benchmarks.

        Neural networks are here and they are only going to get better. Were in for a wild ride.

        • exanime@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          It delivers on what it promises to do for many people who use LLMs.

          Does it though?

          They can be used for coding assistance,

          They promised no programmers needed in 5 years. (well not promised, somebody did say that but not OpenAI staff, I think). The cost of AI both in money and energy use, does not really justify the limited aid it can provide to a programmer. You are never getting enough additional efficiency from said programmer to justify those costs

          Setting up automated customer support,

          Even more hated than when every customer centre moved to India

          tutoring, processing documents, structuring lots of complex information,

          Again, at that cost? the marginal improvement does not add up

          a good generally accurate knowledge on many topics,

          Is it though? if I can only trust it with answers I already know enough to discern whether I am getting bullshit or not, then it’s not worth it. As it it today, I cannot trust it with any search I really do not know the answer to (or can easily verify) as it can be throwing complete bullshit at me and I would have no way of knowing either.

          acting as an editor for your writings, lots more too.

          Again? you mentioned the processing docs already… but again I tell you, who will pay the heavy costs just so internal memos are written slightly better? and everything your company sends out would have to be reviewed as you do not want AI promising something you cannot deliver via hallucination

          • Bongles@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            You keep mentioning cost, and in the grand scale of “there’s no such thing as a free lunch” there’s a large cost but for users, they’re just paying for a license from Microsoft to have copilot in their visual studio software or in M365 apps, etc.

            So for helping with development, it’s really not that expensive for the users. Also, “they” make lots of ridiculous claims, and i don’t know who said it, but no developers in 5 years is a wild claim that no one should’ve thought was real.

            • exanime@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              It’s expensive enough my employer (of more than 2000) decided to only trial it with a small subset of seniors. It’s not just the license, it comes tied up with new hardware

              So far nobody likes it. Most people use it to summarize meetings and we just got a memo saying we need to review the summaries because it keeps missing important data

              Having said all that, when I mentioned the cost, I was referring to the cost of training the models. And without a proper business plan to monetize it, it’s is still unclear how this version of AI could be actually sold for profit.

              Remember that cost, is not just a number. It’s the number in relationships with the benefit it provides.

              For OpenAI, it has yet to produce profit that is not just venture capital and for us as user (us, I cannot speak for everyone) it has not saved us a dime after getting expensive hardware and licenses

              Oh and for the final point. True, openAI may not have been the one to say no programmers in five years although, replacing people has always been their angle. But by now we have seen OpenAI play so fast and loose with all their claims and benchmarks, we cannot believe a word they say (which you seem to do and keep on posting here).

              • Bongles@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                (which you seem to do and keep on posting here)

                I’ve only made the comment you’re replying to. I’m not whoever you’re thinking.

        • Stegget@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          My issue is that I have no reason to think AI will be used to improve my life. All I see is a tool that will rip, rend and tear through the tenuous social fabric we’re trying to collectively hold on to.

          • Smokeydope@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            A tool is a tool. It has no say in how it’s used. AI is no different than the computer software you use browse the internet or do other digital task.

            When its used badly as an outlet for escapism or substitute for social connection it can lead to bad consequences for your personal life.

            When it’s best used is as a tool to help reason through a tough task, or as a step in a creative process. As on demand assistance to aid the disabled. Or to support the neurodivergent and emotionally traumatized to open up to as a non judgemental conversational partner. Or help a super genius rubber duck their novel ideas and work through complex thought processes. It can improve peoples lives for the better if applied to the right use cases.

            Its about how you choose to interact with it in your personal life, and how society, buisnesses and your governing bodies choose to use it in their own processes. And believe me, they will find ways to use it.

            I think comparing llms to computers in 90s is accurate. Right now only nerds, professionals, and industry/business/military see their potential. As the tech gets figured out, utility improves, and llm desktops start getting sold as consumer grade appliances the attitude will change maybe?

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              3 months ago

              A better analogy is search engines. It’s just another tool, but

              • at their best enable your I to find anything from all the worlds knowledge
              • at their worst, are just another way to serve ads and scams, random companies vying for attention, they making any attention is good attention, regardless of what you’re looking for

              When I started as a software engineer, my detailed knowledge was most important and my best tool was the manuals. Now my most important tools are search engines and autocomplete: I can work faster with less knowledge of the syntax and my value is the higher level thought about what we need to do. If my company ever allows AI, I fully expect it to be as important a tool as a search engine.

              • exanime@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Now my most important tools are search engines and autocomplete: I can work faster with less knowledge of the syntax and my value is the higher level thought about what we need to do. If my company ever allows AI, I fully expect it to be as important a tool as a search engine.

                And this is when the cost calculation comes into play. Using a search engine is basically free, using OpenAI for development is tied up with licenses and new hardware.

                So the question will be, are you going to improve efficiency to the point where the cost of the license and new hardware is worth the additional efficiency?

                • AA5B@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Currently my company is more concerned with intellectual privacy, security, liability. Of course that means they’ll only allow ai where they can pay for guarantees, and that brings us back to the cost.

            • exanime@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              A tool is a tool.

              That is a miopic view. Sure a tool is a tool, if I take a gun and use it to save someone from getting mugged = good if I use it to mug someone = bad

              But regardless of the circumstance of use, we can all agree that a gun’s only utility is to destroy a living organism.

              You know, I know, everyone here knows, AI will only be used to generate as much profit as possible in the shortest amount of time, regardless of the harm it causes. And right now, the big promise of AI is that it will replace costly human employees, that’s it, that’s all.

              Fortunately, it is really bad and unlikely to achieve this goal