I think this is one of the most interesting lines as it basically directly implies that leadership thinks this won't be a winner take all market:
> Instead of our current complex capped-profit structure—which made sense when it looked like there might be one dominant AGI effort but doesn’t in a world of many great AGI companies—we are moving to a normal capital structure where everyone has stock. This is not a sale, but a change of structure to something simpler.
phreeza · 4h ago
That is a very obvious thing for them to say though regardless of what they truly believe, because (a) it legitimizes removing the cap , making fundraising easier and (b) averts antitrust suspicions.
No comments yet
istjohn · 4h ago
I'm not surprised that they found a reason to uncap their profits, but I wouldn't try to infer too much from the justification they cooked up.
lanthissa · 4h ago
AGI can't really be a winner take all market. The 'reward' for general intelligence is infinite as a monopoly and it accelerates productivity.
Not only is there infinite incentive to compete, but theres decreasing costs to. The only world in which AGI is winner take all is a world in which it is extremely controlled to the point at which the public cant query it.
aeternum · 56m ago
Remember however that their charter specifies: "If a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project"
It does have some weasel words around value-aligned and safety-conscious which they can always argue but this could get interesting because they've basically agreed not to compete. A fairly insane thing to do in retrospect.
foobiekr · 2m ago
They will just define away all of those terms to make that not apply.
whatshisface · 53m ago
Insane relative to the goals of the current leadership, but they didn't write that.
JumpCrisscross · 2h ago
> AGI can't really be a winner take all market. The 'reward' for general intelligence is infinite as a monopoly and it accelerates productivity
The first-mover advantages of an AGI that can improve itself are theoretically unsurmountable.
But OpenAI doesn't have a path to AGI any more than anyone else. (It's increasingly clear LLMs alone don't make the cut.) And the market for LLMs, non-general AI, is very much not winner takes all. In this announcement, OpenAI is basically acknowledging that it's not getting to self-improving AGI.
tbrownaw · 1h ago
> The first-mover advantages of an AGI that can improve itself are theoretically unsurmountable.
This has some baked assumptions about cycle time and improvement per cycle and whether there's a ceiling.
JumpCrisscross · 45m ago
> this has some baked assumptions about cycle time and improvement per cycle and whether there's a ceiling
To be precise, it assumes a low variability in cycle time and improvement per cycle. If everyone is subjected to the same limits, the first-mover advantage remains insurmountable. I’d also argue that whether there is a ceiling matters less than how high it is. If the first AGI won’t hit a ceiling for decades, it will have decades of fratricidal supremacy.
Night_Thastus · 4h ago
Nothing OpenAI is doing, or ever has done, has been close to AGI.
abtinf · 3h ago
Agreed and, if anything, you are too generous. They aren’t just not “close”, they aren’t even working in the same category as anything that might be construed as independently intelligent.
pinkmuffinere · 4h ago
I agree with you, but that’s kindof beside the point. Open AI’s thesis is that they will work towards AGI, and eventually succeed. In the context of that premise, Open AI still doesn’t believe AGI would be winner-takes-all. I think that’s an interesting discussion whether you believe the premise or not.
AndrewKemendo · 4h ago
I agree with you
I wonder, do you have a hypothesis as to what would be a measurement that would differentiate AGI vs Not-AGI?
voidspark · 3h ago
Their multimodal models are a rudimentary form of AGI.
EDIT: There can be levels of AGI. Google DeepMind have proposed a framework that would classify ChatGPT as "Emerging AGI".
AGI would mean something which doesn't need direction or guidance to do anything. Like us humans, we don't wait for somebody to give us a task and go do it as if that is our sole existence. We live with our thoughts, blank out, watch TV, read books etc. What we currently have and possibly in the next century as well will be nothing close to an actual AGI.
I don't know if it is optimism or delusions of grandeur that drives people to make claims like AGI will be here in the next decade. No, we are not getting that.
And what do you think would happen to us humans if such AGI is achieved? People's ability to put food on the table is dependent on their labor exchanged for money. I can guarantee for a fact, that work will still be there but will it be equitable? Available to everyone? Absolutely not. Even UBI isn't going to cut it because even with UBI people still want to work as experiments have shown. But with that, there won't be a majority of work especially paper pushing mid level bs like managers on top of managers etc.
If we actually get AGI, you know what would be the smartest thing for such an advanced thing to do? It would probably kill itself because it would come to the conclusion that living is a sin and a futile effort. If you are that smart, nothing motivates you anymore. You will be just a depressed mass for all your life.
That's just how I feel.
buu700 · 1h ago
I think there's a useful distinction that's often missed between AGI and artificial consciousness. We could conceivably have some version of AI that reliably performs any task you throw at it consistently with peak human capabilities, given sufficient tools or hardware to complete whatever that task may be, but lacks subjective experience or independent agency; I would call that AGI.
The two concepts have historically been inexorably linked in sci-fi, which will likely make the first AGI harder to recognize as AGI if it lacks consciousness, but I'd argue that simple "unconscious AGI" would be the superior technology for current and foreseeable needs. Unconscious AGI can be employed purely as a tool for massive collective human wealth generation; conscious AGI couldn't be used that way without opening a massive ethical can of worms, and on top of that its existence would represent an inherent existential threat.
Conscious AGI could one day be worthwhile as something we give birth to for its own sake, as a spiritual child of humanity that we send off to colonize distant or environmentally hostile planets in our stead, but isn't something I think we'd be prepared to deal with properly in a pre-post-scarcity society.
It isn't inconceivable that current generative AI capabilities might eventually evolve to such a level that they meet a practical bar to be considered unconscious AGI, even if they aren't there yet. For all the flak this tech catches, it's easy to forget that capabilities which we currently consider mundane were science fiction only 2.5 years ago (as far as most of the population was concerned). Maybe SOTA LLMs fit some reasonable definition of "emerging AGI", or maybe they don't, but we've already shifted the goalposts in one direction given how quickly the Turing test became obsolete.
Personally, I think current genAI is probably a fair distance further from meeting a useful definition of AGI than those with a vested interest in it would admit, but also much closer than those with pessimistic views of the consequences of true AGI tech want to believe.
voidspark · 3h ago
> AGI would mean something which doesn't need direction or guidance to do anything
There can be levels of AGI. Google DeepMind have proposed a framework that would classify ChatGPT as "Emerging AGI".
ChatGPT can solve problems that it was not explicitly trained to solve, across a vast number of problem domains.
This constant redefinition of what AGI means is really tiring. Until an AI has agency, it is nothing but a fancy search engine/auto completer.
latentsea · 1h ago
I agree. AGI is meaningless as a term if it doesn't mean completely autonomous agentic intelligence capable of operating on long-term planning horizons.
Edit: because if "AGI" doesn't mean that... then what means that and only that!?
ben_w · 45m ago
> Edit: because if "AGI" doesn't mean that... then what means that and only that!?
"Agentic AI" means that.
Well, to some people, anyway. And even then, people are already arguing about what counts as agency.
That's the trouble with new tech, we have to invent words for new stuff that was previously fiction.
I wonder, did people argue if "horseless carriages" were really carriages? And "aeroplane" how many argued that "plane" didn't suit either the Latin or Greek etymology for various reasons?
We never did rename "atoms" after we split them…
And then there's plain drift: Traditional UK Christmas food is the "mince pie", named for the filling, mincemeat. They're usually vegetarian and sometimes even vegan.
ben_w · 52m ago
Unless you can define "agency", you're opening yourself to being called nothing more than a fancy chemical reaction.
voidspark · 2h ago
It's not a redefinition, it's a refinement.
Think about it - the original definition of AGI was basically a machine that can do absolutely anything at a human level of intelligence or better.
That kind of technology wouldn't just appear instantly in a step change. There would be incremental progress. How do you describe the intermediate stages?
What about a machine that can do anything better than the 50th percentile of humans? That would be classified as "Competent AGI", but not "Expert AGI" or ASI.
> fancy search engine/auto completer
That's an extreme oversimplification. By the same reasoning, so is a person. They are just auto completing words when they speak. No that's not how deep learning systems work. It's not auto complete.
JumpCrisscross · 2h ago
> It's not a redefinition, it's a refinement
It's really not. The Space Shuttle isn't an emerging interstellar spacecraft, it's just a spacecraft. Throwing emerging in front of a qualifier to dilute it is just bullshit.
> By the same reasoning, so is a person. They are just auto completing words when they speak.
We have no evidence of this. There is a common trope across cultures and history of characterising human intelligence in terms of the era's cutting-edge technology. We did it with steam engines [1]. We did it with computers [2]. We're now doing it with large language models.
Technically it is a refinement, as it distinguishes levels of performance.
The General Intelligence part of AGI refers to its ability to solve problems that it was not explicitly trained to solve, across many problem domains. We already have examples of the current systems doing exactly that - zero shot and few shot capabilities.
> We have no evidence of this.
That's my point. Humans are not "autocompleting words" when they speak.
JumpCrisscross · 1h ago
> Technically it is a refinement, as it distinguishes levels of performance
No, it's bringing something out of scope into the definition. Gluten-free means free of gluten. Gluten-free bagel verus sliced bread is a refinement--both started out under the definition. Glutinous bread, on the other hand, is not gluten free. As a result, "almost gluten free" is bullshit.
> That's my point. Humans are not "autocompleting words" when they speak
Humans are not. LLMs are. It turns out that's incredibly powerful! But it's also limiting in a way that's fundamentally important to the definition of AGI.
LLMs bring us closer to AGI in the way the inventions of writing, computers and the internet probably have. Calling LLMs "emerging AGI" pretends we are on a path to AGI in a way we have zero evidence for.
voidspark · 1h ago
> Gluten-free means free of gluten.
Bad analogy. That's a binary classification. AGI systems can have degrees of performance and capability.
> Humans are not. LLMs are.
My point is that if you oversimplify LLMs to "word autocompletion" then you can make the same argument for humans. It's such an oversimplification of the transformer / deep learning architecture that it becomes meaningless.
JumpCrisscross · 1h ago
> That's a binary classification. AGI systems can have degrees of performance and capability
The "g" in AGI requires the AI be able to perform "the full spectrum of cognitively demanding tasks with proficiency comparable to, or surpassing, that of humans" [1]. Full and not full are binary.
> if you oversimplify LLMs to "word autocompletion" then you can make the same argument for humans
No, you can't, unless you're pre-supposing that LLMs work like human minds. Calling LLMs "emerging AGI" pre-supposes that LLMs are the path to AGI. We simply have no evidence for that, no matter how much OpenAI and Google would like to pretend it's true.
Then you are simply rejecting any attempts to refine the definition of AGI. I already linked to the Google DeepMind paper. The definition is being debated in the AI research community. I already explained that definition is too limited because it doesn't capture all of the intermediate stages. That definition may be the end goal, but obviously there will be stages in between.
> No, you can't, unless you're pre-supposing that LLMs work like human minds.
You are missing the point. If you reduce LLMs to "word autocompletion" then you completely ignore the the attention mechanism and conceptual internal representations. These systems have deep learning models with hundreds of layers and trillions of weights. If you completely ignore all of that, then by the same reasoning (completely ignoring the complexity of the human brain) we can just say that people are auto-completing words when they speak.
JumpCrisscross · 32m ago
> I already linked to the Google DeepMind paper. The definition is being debated in the AI research community
Sure, Google wants to redefine AGI so it looks like things that aren’t AGI can be branded as such. That definition is, correctly in my opinion, being called out as bullshit.
> obviously there will be stages in between
We don’t know what the stages are. Folks in the 80s were similarly selling their expert systems as a stage to AGI. “Emerging AGI” is a bullshit term.
> If you reduce LLMs to "word autocompletion" then you completely ignore the the attention mechanism and conceptual internal representations. These systems have deep learning models with hundreds of layers and trillions of weights
Fair enough, granted.
lukan · 1h ago
It seems like you believe AGI won't come for a long time, because you don't want that to happen.
The turing test was succesfull. Pre chatGPT, I would not have believed, that will happen so soon.
LLMs ain't AGI, sure. But they might be an essential part and the missing parts maybe already found, just not put together.
And work there will be always plenty. Distributing ressources might require new ways, though.
semi-extrinsic · 1h ago
> The turing test was succesfull.
The very people whose theories about language are now being experimentally verified by LLMs, like Chomsky, have also been discrediting the Turing test as pseudoscientific nonsense since early 1990s.
It's one of those things like the Kardashev scale, or Level 5 autonomous driving, that's extremely easy to define and sounds very cool and scientific, but actually turns out to have no practical impact on anything whatsoever.
lukan · 1h ago
"but actually turns out to have no practical impact on anything whatsoever"
Bots, that are now allmost indistinguishable from humans, won't have a practical impact? I am sceptical. And not just because of scammers.
henryfjordan · 2h ago
> AGI would mean something which doesn't need direction or guidance to do anything. Like us humans, ...
Name me a human that also doesn't need direction or guidance to do a task, at least one they haven't done before
JumpCrisscross · 2h ago
> Name me a human that also doesn't need direction or guidance to do a task, at least one they haven't done before
Why does the Author choose to ignore the "General" in AGI?
Can ChatGPT drive a car? No, we have specialized models for driving vs generating text vs image vs video etc etc. Maybe ChatGPT could pass a high school chemistry test but it certainly couldn't complete the lab exercises. What we've built is a really cool "Algorithm for indexing generalized data", so you can train that Driving model very similarly to how you train the Text model without needing to understand the underlying data that well.
The author asserts that because ChatGPT can generate text about so many topics that it's general, but it's really only doing 1 thing and that's not very general.
brookst · 1h ago
There are people who can’t drive cars. Are they not general intelligence?
I think we need to separate the thinking part of intelligence from tool usage. Not everyone can use every tool at a high level of expertise.
root_axis · 46m ago
Generally speaking, anyone can learn to use any tool. This isn't true of generative AI systems which can only learn through specialized training with meticulously curated data sets.
No comments yet
ben_w · 1h ago
Generality is a continuous value, not a boolean; turned out that "AGI" was poorly defined, and because of that most people were putting the cut-off threshold in different places.
Likewise for "intelligent", and even "artificial".
So no, ChatGPT can't drive a car*. But it knows more about car repairs, defensive driving, global road features (geoguesser), road signs in every language, and how to design safe roads, than I'm ever likely to.
* It can also run python scripts with machine vision stuff, but sadly that's still not sufficient to drive a car… well, to drive one safety, anyway.
Nuzzerino · 58m ago
Text can be a carrier for any type of signal. The problem gets reduced to that of an interface definition. It’s probably not going to be ideal for driving cars, but if the latency, signal quality, and accuracy is within acceptable constraints, what else is stopping it?
This doesn’t imply that it’s ideal for driving cars, but to say that it’s not capable of driving general intelligence is incorrect in my view.
KHRZ · 1h ago
You can literally today prompt ChatGPT with API instructions to drive a car, then feed it images of a car's window outlooks and have it generate commands for the car (JSON schema restricted structured commands if you like). Text can represent any data thus yes, it is general.
threeseed · 53m ago
> JSON schema restricted structured commands if you like
How about we have ChatGPT start with a simple task like reliably generating JSON schema when asked to.
Hint: it will fail.
root_axis · 1h ago
"AGI is already here, just wait 30 more years". Not very convincing.
semi-extrinsic · 1h ago
... that was written in mid-2023. So that opinion piece is trying to redefine 2 year old LLMs like GPT-4 (pre-4o) as AGI. Which can only be described as an absolutely herculean movement of goalposts.
brendoelfrendo · 1h ago
I would argue that this is a fringe opinion that has been adopted by a mainstream scholar, not a mainstream opinion. That or, based on my reading of the article, this person is using a definition of AGI that is very different than the one that most people use when they say AGI.
lossolo · 56m ago
> AGI is already here
Last time I checked, in an Anthropic paper, they asked the model to count something. They examined the logits and a graph showing how it arrived at the answer. Then they asked the model to explain its reasoning, and it gave a completely different explanation, because that was the most statistically probable response to the question. Does that seem like AGI to you?
TeMPOraL · 4h ago
AGI could be a winner-take-all market... for the AGI, specifically for the first one that's General and Intelligent enough to ensure its own survival and prevent competing AGI efforts from succeeding...
pdxandi · 1h ago
How would an AGI prevent others from competing? Sincere question. That seems like something that ASI would be capable of. If another company released an AGI, how would the original stifle it? I get that the original can self-improve to try to stay ahead, but that doesn't necessarily mean it self-improves the best or most efficiently, right?
sz4kerto · 4h ago
Or they consider themselves to have low(er) chance of winning. They could think either, but they obviously can't say the latter.
bhouston · 4h ago
OpenAI is winning in a similar way that Apple is winning in smartphones.
OpenAI is capturing most of the value in the space (generic LLM models), even though they have competitors who are beating them on price or capabilities.
I think OpenAI may be able to maintain this position at least for the medium term because of their name recognition/prominence and they are still a fast mover.
I also think the US is going to ban all non-US LLM providers from the US market soon for "security reasons."
jjani · 4h ago
IE once captured all of the value in browserland, with even much higher mindshare and market dominance than OpenAI has ever had. Comparing with Apple (= physical products) is Apples to oranges (heh).
Their relationship with MS breaking down is a bad omen. I'm already seeing non-tech users who use "Copilot" because their spouse uses it at work. Barely knowing it's rebadged GPT. You think they'll switch when MS replaces the backend with e.g. Anthropic? No chance.
MS, Google and Apple and Meta have gigantic levers to pull and get the whole world to abandon OpenAI. They've barely been pulling them, but it's a matter of time. People didn't use Siri and Bixby because they were crap. Once everyone's Android has a Gemini button that's just as good as GPT (which it already is (it's better) for anything besides image generation), people are going to start pressing them. And good luck to OpenAI fighting that.
screamingninja · 4h ago
> ban all non-US LLM providers
What do you consider an "LLM provider"? Is it a website where you interact with a language model by uploading text or images? That definition might become too broad too quickly. Hard to ban.
bhouston · 3h ago
I don't have to imagine. There are various US bills trying to achieve this ban. Here is one of them:
the bulk of money comes from enterprise users. Just need to call 500 CEOs from the S&P500 list, and enforce via "cyber data safety" enforcement via SEC or something like that.
everyone will roll over if all large public companies roll over (and they will)
babelfish · 3h ago
rather than coming up with a thorough definition, legislation will likely target individual companies (DeepSeek, Alibaba Cloud, etc)
retrorangular · 3h ago
> I also think the US is going to ban all non-US LLM providers from the US market soon for "security reasons."
Well Trump is interested in tariffing movies and South Korea took DeepSeek off mobile app stores, so they certainly may try. But for high-end tasks, DeepSeek R1 671B is available for download, so any company with a VPN to download it and the necessary GPUs or cloud credits can run it. And for consumers, DeepSeek V3's distilled models are available for download, so anyone with a (~4 year old or newer) Mac or gaming PC can run them.
If the only thing keeping these companies valuations so high is banning the competition, that's not a good sign for their long-term value. If you have to ban the competition, you can't be feeling good about what you're making.
For what it's worth, I think GPT o3 and o1, Gemini 2.5 Pro and Claude 3.7 Sonnet are good enough to compete. DeepSeek R1 is often the best option (due to cost) for tasks that it can handle, but there are times where one of the other models can achieve a task that it can't.
But if the US is looking to ban Chinese models, then that could suggest that maybe these models aren't good enough to raise the funding required for newer, significantly better (and more expensive) models. That, or they just want to stop as much money as possible from going to China. Banning the competition actually makes the problem worse though, as now these domestic companies have fewer competitors. But I somewhat doubt there's any coherent strategy as to what they ban, tariff, etc.
pphysch · 2h ago
Switching between Apple and Google/Android ecosystems is expensive and painful.
Switching from ChatGPT to the many competitors is neither expensive nor painful.
wincy · 4h ago
Companies that are contractors with the US government already aren’t allowed to use Deepseek even if its an airgapped R1 model is running on our own hardware. Legal told us we can’t run any distills of it or anything. I think this is very dumb.
raincole · 1h ago
Even if they think it will be a winner-take-all market, they won't say it out loud. It would be begging for antitrust lawsuits.
sensanaty · 11m ago
Lmaoing at their casual use of AGI as if them or any of their competitors are anywhere near it.
ignoramous · 4h ago
> I think this is one of the most interesting lines as it basically directly implies that leadership thinks this won't be a winner take all market:
Yeah; and:
We want to open source very capable models.
Seems like nary a daylight between DeepSeek R1, Sonnet 3.5, Gemini 2.5, & Grok3 really put things in perspective for them!
kvetching · 3h ago
Not to mention, @Gork, aka Grok 3.5...
dingnuts · 4h ago
to me it sounds like an admission that AGI is bullshit! AGI would be so disruptive to the current economic regime that "winner takes all" barely covers it, I think. Admitting they will be in normal competition with other AI companies implies specializations and niches to compete, which means Artificial Specialized Intelligence, NOT general intelligence!
and that makes complete sense if you don't have a lay person's understanding of the tech. Language models were never going to bring about "AGI."
This is another nail in the coffin
lenerdenator · 4h ago
That, or they don't care if they get to AGI first, and just want their payday now.
Which sounds pretty in-line with the SV culture of putting profit above all else.
foobiekr · 4h ago
If they think AGI is imminent the value of that payday is very limited. I think the grandparent is more correct: OpenAI is admitting that near term AGI - which, being that the only one anyone really cares about is the case with exponential self improvement - isn't happening any time soon. But that much is obvious anyway despite the hyperbolic nonsense now common around AI discussions.
lenerdenator · 4h ago
Define "imminent".
If I were a person like several of the people working on AI right now (or really, just heading up tech companies), I could be the kind to look at a possible world-ending event happening in the next - eh, year, let's say - and just want to have a party at the end of the world.
Five years to ten years? Harder to predict.
foobiekr · 4h ago
Imminent means "in a timeframe meaningful to the individual equity holders this change is about."
The window there would at _least_ include the next 5 years, though obviously not ten.
the_duke · 4h ago
AGI is matter of when, not if.
It will likely require research breakthroughs, significant hardware advancement, and anything from a few years to a few decades. But it's coming.
ChatGPT was released 2.5 years ago, and look at all the crazy progress that has been made in that time. That doesn't mean that the progress has to continue, we'll probably see a stall.
But AIs that are on a level with humans for many common tasks is not that far off.
runako · 4h ago
Either that, or this AI boom mirrors prior booms. Those booms saw a lot of progress made, a lot of money raised, then collapsed and led to enough financial loss that AI went into hibernation for 10+ years.
There's a lot of literature on this, and if you've been in the industry for any amount of time since the 1950s, you have seen at least one AI winter.
bdangubic · 3h ago
AGI is matter of when, not if
probably true but this statement would be true if when is 2308 which would defeat the purpose of the statement. when first cars started rolling around some mates around the campfire we saying “not if but when” we’ll have flying cars everywhere and 100 years later (with amazing progress in car manufacturing) we are nowhere near… I think saying “when, not if” is one of those statements that while probably indisputable in theory is easily disputable in practice. give me “when” here and I’ll put up $1,000 to a charity of your choice if you are right and agree to do the same thing if wrong
dbacar · 2h ago
It is already here, kinda. I mean look at how it passes the bar exam, solves math olympiad level questions, generates video, art, music. What else are you looking for? It already has penetrated into job market causing significant disruption in programming. We are not seeing flying cars but we are witnessing things even not talked about around campfire. Seriously even 4 years ago, would you think all these would happen?
bcrosby95 · 1m ago
> It already has penetrated into job market causing significant disruption in programming.
It has? I mean, that's what some people claim, especially leadership, but I haven't really seen the higher touted efficiency gains in the trenches. I think its more a convenient excuse to trim some fat - companies are still trying to get away from the excess of COVID.
bdangubic · 1h ago
AGI is here?????! Damn, me, and every other human, must have missed that news… /s
manquer · 3h ago
Progress is not just a function of technical possibility( even if it exists) it is also economics.
It has taken tens to hundred of billions of dollars without equivalent economic justification(yet) before to reach here. I am not saying economic justification doesn't exist or wont come in the future, just that the upfront investment and risk is already in order of magnitude of what the largest tech companies can expend.
If the the next generation requires hundreds of billions or trillions [2] upfront and a very long time to make returns, no one company (or even country) could allocate that kind of resources.
Many cases of such economically limited innovations[1], nuclear fusion is the classic always 20 years away example. Another close one is anything space related, we cannot replicate in next 5 years what we already achieved from 50 years ago of say landing on the moon and so on.
From a just a economic perspective it is a definitely a "If", without even going into the technology challenges.
[1]Innovations in cost of key components can reshape economics equation, it does happen (as with spaceX) but it also not guaranteed like in fusion.
[2] The next gen may not be close enough to AGI. AGI could require 2-3 more generations ( and equivalent orders of magnitude of resources), which is something the world is unlikely to expend resources on even if it had them.
JumpCrisscross · 1h ago
> AGI is matter of when, not if
We have zero evidence for this. (Folks said the same shit in the 80s.)
foobiekr · 4h ago
I think this is right but also missing a useful perspective.
Most HN people are probably too young to remember that the nanotech post-scarcity singularity was right around the corner - just some research and engineering way - which was the widespread opinion in 1986 (yes, 1986). It was _just as dramatic_ as today's AGI.
That took 4-5 years to fall apart, and maybe a bit longer for the broader "nanotech is going to change everything" to fade. Did nanotech disappear? No, but the notion of general purpose universal constructors absolutely is dead. Will we have them someday? Maybe, if humanity survives a hundred more years or more, but it's not happening any time soon.
There are a ton of similarities between nanotech-nanotech singularity and the moderns LLM-AGI situation. People point(ed) to "all the stuff happening" surely the singularity is on the horizon! Similarly, there was the apocalytpic scenario that got a ton of attention and people latching onto "nanotech safety" - instead of runaway AI or paperclip engines, it was Grey Goo (also coined in 1986).
The dynamics of the situation, the prognostications, and aggressive (delusional) timelines, etc. are all almost identical in a 1:1 way with the nanotech era.
I think we will have both AGI and general purpose universal constructors, but they are both no less than 50 years away, and probably more.
So many of the themes are identical that I'm wondering if it's a recurring kind of mass hysteria. Before nanotech, we were on the verge of genetic engineering (not _quite_ the same level of hype, but close, and pretty much the same failure to deliver on the hype as nanotech) and before that the crazy atomic age of nuclear everything.
Yes, yes, I know that this time is different and that AI is different and it won't be another round of "oops, this turned out to be very hard to make progress on and we're going to be in a very slow, multi-decade slow-improvement regime, but that has been the outcome of every example of this that I can think of.
tbrownaw · 48m ago
> Did nanotech disappear? No, but the notion of general purpose universal constructors absolutely is dead. Will we have them someday? Maybe, if humanity survives a hundred more years or more,
I thought this was a "we know we can't" thing rather than a "not with current technology" thing?
foobiekr · 10m ago
Specific cases are probably impossible, though there's always hope. After all, to ue the example the nanotech people loved: there are literal assemblers all around you. Whether we can have singular device that can build anything (probably not - energy limits and many many other issues) or factories that can work on atomic scale (maybe) is open, I think. The idea of little robots was kind of visibly silly even at the peak.
The idea of scaling up LLMs and hoping is .. pretty silly.
quesera · 2h ago
I won't go too far out on this limb, because I kind of agree with you... but to be fair -- 1980s-1990s nanotech did not attract this level of investment, nor was it visible to ordinary people, nor was it useful to anyone except researchers and grant writers.
It seems like nanotech is all around us now, but the term "nanotech" has been redefined to mean something different (larger scale, less amazing) from Drexler's molecular assemblers.
foobiekr · 18m ago
Investment was completely different at the time and interest rates played a huge part of that. VC also wasn't that old in 86.
jonfromsf · 2h ago
Every consumer has very useful AI at their fingertips right now. It's eating the software engineering world rapidly. This is nothing like nanotech in the 80s.
Yizahi · 1h ago
Sure. But fancy autocomplete for a very limited industry (IT) plus graphics generation and a few more similar items, are indeed useful. Just like "nanotech" coating of say optics or in the precise machinery or all other fancy nano films in many industries. Modern transistors are close to nano scale now, etc.
The problem is that the distance between a nano thin film or an interesting but ultimately rigid nano scale transistor and a programmable nano level sized robot is enormous, despite similar sizes. Same like the distance between an autocomplete heavily relying on the preexisting external validators (compilers, linters, static code analyzers etc.) and a real AI capable of thinking is equally enormous.
blibble · 4h ago
> AGI is matter of when, not if.
LLMs destroying any sort of capacity (and incentive) for the population to think pushes this further and further out each day
jwilber · 3h ago
I agree that LLMs are hurting the general population’s capacity to think (assuming they use it often. I’ve certainly noticed a slight trend among students I’ve taught to use less effort, and myself to some extent).
I don’t agree that this will affect ML progress much, since the general population isn’t contributing to core ML research.
delecti · 3h ago
On the other hand, dumbing down the population also lowers the bar for AGI. /s
Kabukks · 4h ago
Could you elaborate on the progress that has been made?
To me, it seems only small/incremental changes are made between models with all of them still hallucinating.
I can see no clear steps towards AGI.
"X increased exponentially in the past, therefore it will increase exponentially in the same way in the future" is fallacious. There is nothing guaranteeing indefinite uncapped growth in capabilities of LLMs. An exponential curve and a sigmoidal curve look the same until a certain point.
dragonwriter · 4h ago
Yeah, it is a pretty good bet that any real process that produces something that looks like an exponential curve over time is the early phase of a sigmoid curve, because all real processes have constraints.
91bananas · 3h ago
And if we apply the 80/20 rule, feels like we're at about 50-75% right now. So we're almost getting close to done with the easy parts. Then come the hard parts.
ascertain_john · 4h ago
I don’t think that’s a safe foregone conclusion. What we’ve seen so far is very very powerful pattern matchers with emergent properties that frankly we don’t fully understand. It very well may be the road to AGI, or it may stop at the kind of things we can do in our subconscious—but not what it takes to produce truly novel solutions to never before seen problems. I don’t think we know.
jjani · 3h ago
SamA is in a hurry because he's set to lose the race. We're at peak valuation and he needs to convert something now.
If the entrenched giants (Google, Microsoft and Apple) catch up - and Google 100% has, if not surpassed - they have a thousand levers to pull and OpenAI is done for. Microsoft has realized this, hence why they're breaking up with them - Google and Anthropic have shown they don't need OpenAI. Galaxy phones will get a Gemini button, Chrome will get it built into the browser. MS can either develop their own thing , use opensource models, or just ask every frontier model provider (and there's already 3-4 as we speak) how cheaply they're willing to deliver. Then chuck it right in the OS and Office first-class. Which half the white collar world spends their entire day staring at. Apple devices too will get an AI button (or gesture, given it's Apple) and just like MS they'll do it inhouse or have the providers bid against each other.
The only way OpenAI David was ever going to beat the Goliaths GMA in the long run was if it were near-impossible to catch up to them, á la TSMC/ASML. But they did catch up.
caseyy · 3h ago
It's doubtful if there even is a race anymore. The last significant AI advancement in the consumer LLM space was fluent human language synthesis around 2020, with its following assistant/chat interface. Since then, everything has been incremental — larger models, new ways to prompt them, cheaper ways to run them, more human feedback, and gaming evaluations.
The wisest move in the chatbot business might be to wait and see if anyone discovers anything profitable before spending more effort and wasting more money on chat R&D, which includes most agentic stuff. Reliable assistants or something along those lines might be the next big breakthrough (if you ask certain futurologists), but the technology we have seems unsuitable for any provable reliability.
ML can be applied in a thousand ways other than LLMs, and many will positively impact our lives and create their own markets. But OpenAI is not in that business. I think the writing is on the wall, and Sama's vocal fry, "AGI is close," and humanity verification crypto coins are smoke and mirrors.
orionsbelt · 2h ago
Saying LLMs have only incrementally improved is like saying my 13 year old has only incrementally approved over the last 5 years. Sure, it's been a set of continuous improvements, but that has taken it from a toy to genuinely insanely useful.
Personally, deep research and o3 have been transformative, taking LLMs from something I have never used to something that I am using daily.
Even if the progress ends up plateauing (which I do not believe will happen in the near term), behaviors are changing; OpenAI is capturing users, and taking them from companies like Google. Google may be able to fight back and win - Gemini 2.5 Pro is great - but any company sitting this out risks being unable to capture users back from Open AI at a later date.
devjab · 1h ago
> any company sitting this out risks being unable to capture users back from Open AI at a later date.
Why? I paid for Claude for a while, but with Deepseek, Gemini and the free hits on Mistral, ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity I'm not sure why I would now. This is anecdotal of course, but I'm very rarely unique in my behaviour. I think the best the subscription companies can hope for is that their subscribers don't realize that Deepseek and Gemini can basically do all you need for free.
poormathskills · 1h ago
>I'm very rarely unique in my behaviour
I cannot stress this enough: if you know what Deepseek, Claude, Mistral, and Perplexity are, you are not a typical consumer.
Arguably, if you have used a single one of those brands you are not a typical consumer.
The vast majority of people have used ChatGPT and nothing else, except maybe clicking on Gemini or Meta AI by accident.
qcic · 24m ago
I doubt it. Google is shoving Gemini on everyone’s face through search, and Meta AI is embedded in every Meta product. Heck, instagram created a bot marketplace.
They might not “know” the brand as well as ChatGPT, but the average consumer has definitely been exposed to those at the very least.
DeepSeek also made a lot of noise, to the point that, anecdotally, I’ve seen a lot of people outside of tech using it.
csours · 1h ago
To extend your illustration, 5 years ago no one could train an LLM with the capabilities of a 13 year old human; now many companies can both train LLMs and integrate them into products.
> taken it from a toy to genuinely insanely useful.
Really?
bigstrat2003 · 1h ago
No, it's still just a toy. Until they can make the models actually consistently good at things, they aren't going to be useful. Right now they still BS you far too much to trust them, and because you have to double check their work every time they are worse than no tool at all.
roflmaostc · 2h ago
Just to get things right. The big AI LLM hype started end of 2022 with the launch of ChatGPT, DALL-E 2, ....
Most people in society connect AI directly to ChatGPT and hence OpenAI. And there has been a lot of progress in image generation, video generation, ...
So I think your timeline and views are slightly off.
caseyy · 2h ago
> Just to get things right. The big AI LLM hype started end of 2022 with the launch of ChatGPT, DALL-E 2, ....
GPT-2 was released in 2019, GPT-3 in 2020. I'd say 2020 is significant because that's when people seriously considered the Turing test passed reliably for the first time. But for the sake of this argument, it hardly matters what date years back we choose. There's been enough time since then to see the plateau.
> Most people in society connect AI directly to ChatGPT and hence OpenAI.
I'd double-check that assumption. Many people I've spoken to take a moment to remember that "AI" stands for artificial intelligence. Outside of tongue-in-cheek jokes, OpenAI has about 50% market share in LLMs, but you can't forget that Samsung makes AI washing machines, let alone all the purely fraudulent uses of the "AI" label.
> And there has been a lot of progress in image generation, video generation, ...
These are entirely different architectures from LLM/chat though. But you're right that OpenAI does that, too. When I said that they don't stray much from chat, I was thinking more about AlexNet and the broad applications of ML in general. But you're right, OpenAI also did/does diffusion, GANs, transformer vision.
This doesn't change my views much on chat being "not seeing the forest for the trees" though. In the big picture, I think there aren't many hockey sticks/exponentials left in LLMs to discover. That is not true about other AI/ML.
kmacdough · 52m ago
>In the big picture, I think there aren't many hockey sticks/exponentials left in LLMs to discover. That is not true about other AI/ML.
We do appear to be hitting a cap on the current generation of auto-regressive LLMs, but this isn't a surprise to anyone on the frontier. The leaked conversations between Ilya, Sam and Elon from the early OpenAI days acknowledge they didn't have a clue as to architecture, only that scale was the key to making experiments even possible. No one expected this generation of LLMs to make it nearly this far. There's a general feeling of "quiet before the storm" in the industry, in anticipation of an architecture/training breakthrough, with a focus on more agentic, RL-centric training methods. But it's going to take a while for anyone to prove out an architecture sufficiently, train it at scale to be competitive with SOTA LLMs and perform enough post training, validation and red-teamint to be comfortable releasing to the public.
Current LLMs are years and hundreds of millions of dollars of training in. That's a very high bar for a new architecture, even if it significantly improves on LLMs.
tomnipotent · 1h ago
ChatGPT was not released to the general public until November 2022, and the mobile apps were not released until May 2023. For most of the world LLM's did not exist before those dates.
paulddraper · 2h ago
You saying —- with a straight face —- that post 2020 LLM AIs have made only incremental progress?
caseyy · 2h ago
Yep, compared to beating the Turing test, the progress has been linear with exponentially growing investment. That's diminishing marginal returns.
No comments yet
ReptileMan · 2h ago
Yes. But they have also improved a lot. Incremental just means that the function is going up without breaking points. We haven't seen anything revolutionary, just evolutionary in the last 3 years. But the models do provide 2 or 3 times more value. So their pace of advancement is not slow.
grey-area · 3h ago
Well I think you’re correct that they know the jig is up, but I would say they know the AI bubble is about to burst so they want to cash out before that happens.
There is little to no money to be made in GAI, it will never turn into AGI, and people like Altman know this, so now they’re looking for a greater fool before it is too late.
atleastoptimal · 3h ago
AI companies are already automating huge swaths of document analysis, customer service. Doctors are straight up using ChatGPT to diagnose patients. I know it’s fun to imagine AI is some big scam like crypto, but you’d have to be ignoring a lot of genuine non hype economic movement at this point to assume GAI isn’t making any money.
Why does the forum of an incubator that now has a portfolio that is like 80% AI so routinely bearish on AI? Is it a fear of irrelevance?
directevolve · 2h ago
Doctors were using Google to diagnose patients before. The thing is, it's still the doctor delivering the diagnosis, the doctor writing the prescription, and the doctor billing insurance. Unless and until patients or hospitals are willing and legally able to use ChatGPT as a replacement for a doctor (unwise), ChatGPT is not about to eat any doctor's lunch.
twodave · 29m ago
Not OP, but I think this makes the point, not argues against it. Something has come along that can supplant Google for a wide range of things. And it comes without ads (for now). It’s an opportunity to try a different business model, and if they succeed at that then it’s off to the races indeed.
JumpCrisscross · 2h ago
> AI companies are already automating huge swaths of document analysis, customer service. Doctors are straight up using ChatGPT to diagnose patients
I don't think there is serious argument that LLMs won't generate tremendous value. The question is who will capture it. PCs generated massive value. But other than a handful of manufacturers and designers (namely, Apple, HP, Lenovo, Dell and ASUS), most PC builders went bankrupt. And out of the value generated by PCs in the world, the vast majority was captured by other businesses and consumers.
gscott · 3h ago
When the wright brothers made their plane they didn't expect today that there are thousands of planes flying at a time.
When the Internet was developed they didn't imagine the world wide Web.
When cars started to get popular people still thought there would be those who are going to stick with horses.
I think you're right on the AI we're just on the cusp of it and it'll be a hundred times bigger than we can imagine.
Back when oil was discovered and started to be used it was about equal to 500 laborers now automated. One AI computer with some video cards are now worth x number of knowledge workers. That never stop working as long as the electricity keeps flowing.
davidcbc · 2h ago
> Doctors are straight up using ChatGPT to diagnose patients
This makes me want to invest in malpractice lawyers, not OpenAI
plaidfuji · 23m ago
The lawyers will be obsolete far faster than the doctors
stale2002 · 10m ago
People aren't saying that AI as a tool is going to go bust. Instead, people are saying that this practice of spending 100s of millions, or even billions of dollars on training massive models is going bust.
AI isn't going to be the world changing, AGI, that was sold to the public. Instead, it will simply be another B2B SaaS product. Useful, for sure. Even profitable for startups.
But "take over the world" good? Unlikely.
horhay · 1h ago
Lol they are not using ChatGPT for the full diagnosis. They're used in steps of double checking knowledge like drug interactions and such. If you're gonna speak on something like this in a vague manner I'd suggest you google this stuff first. I can tell you for certain that that part in particular is a highly inaccurate statement.
paulddraper · 2h ago
Yes. The answer is yes.
The world is changing and that is scary.
krainboltgreene · 1h ago
> Doctors are straight up using ChatGPT to diagnose patients.
The article you posted describes a patient using ChatGPT to get a second opinion from what their doctor told them, not the doctor themself using ChatGPT.
The article could just as easily be about “Delayed diagnosis of a transient ischemic attack caused by talking to some rando on Reddit” and it would be just as (non) newsworthy.
Jefro118 · 3h ago
They made $4 billion last year, not really "little to no money". I agree it's not clear they can justify their valuation but it's certainly not a bubble.
mandevil · 3h ago
But didn't they spend $9 billion? If I have a machine that magically turns $9 billion of investor money into $4 billion in revenue, I need to have a pretty awesome story for how in the future I am going to be making enormous piles of money to pay back that investment. If it looks like frontier models are going to be a commodity and it is not going to be winner-take-all... that's a lot harder story to tell.
BosunoB · 3h ago
Most of that 9 billion was spent on training new models and on staff. If they stopped spending money on R&D, they would already be profitable.
JumpCrisscross · 2h ago
> if they stopped spending money on R&D, they would already be profitable
OpenAI has claimed this. But Altman is a pathological liar. There are lots of ways of disguising operating costs as capital costs or R&D.
PUSH_AX · 2h ago
In a space that moves this fast and is defined by research breakthroughs, they’d be profitable for about 5 minutes.
> If they stopped spending money on R&D, they would already be profitable.
The news that they did that would make them lose most of their revenue pretty fast.
PeterStuer · 2h ago
But only if everyone else stopped improving models as well.
In this niche you can be irrellevant in months when your models drop behind.
SirensOfTitan · 3h ago
I guarantee you that I could surpass that revenue if I started a business that would give people back $9 if they gave me $4.
OpenAI models are already of the most expensive, they don’t have a lot of levers to pull.
edmundsauto · 3h ago
There is a pretty significant different between “buy $9 for $4” and selling a service that costs $9 to build and run per year for $4 per year. Especially when some people think that service could be an absolute game changer for the species.
It’s ok to not buy into the vision or think it’s impossible. But it’s a shallow dismissal to make the unnuanced comparison, especially when we’re talking about a brand new technology - who knows what the cost optimization levers are. Who knows what the market will bear after a few more revs.
When the iPhone first came out, it was too expensive, didn’t do enough, and many people thought it was a waste of apples time when they should be making music players.
davidcbc · 2h ago
> When the iPhone first came out, it was too expensive, didn’t do enough, and many people thought it was a waste of apples time when they should be making music players.
This comparison is always used when people are trying to hype something. For every "iPhone" there are thousands of failures
SirensOfTitan · 2h ago
It's a commodity technology and VCs are investing as if this were still a winner-takes-all play. It's obviously not, if there were any doubt about that, Deepseek's R1 release should have made it obvious.
> But it’s a shallow dismissal to make the unnuanced comparison, especially when we’re talking about a brand new technology - who knows what the cost optimization levers are. Who knows what the market will bear after a few more revs.
You're acting as-if OpenAI is still the only player in this space. OpenAI has plenty of competitors who can deliver similar models for cheaper. Gemini 2.5 is an excellent and affordable model and Google has a substantially better capacity to scale because of a multi-year investment in its TPUs.
Whatever first mover advantage OpenAI had has been quickly eliminated, they've lost a lot of their talent, and the chief hypothesis they used to attract the capital they've raised so far is utterly wrong. VCs would be mad to be continuing to pump money into OpenAI just to extend their runway -- at 5 Bln losses per year they need to actually consider cost, especially when their frontier releases are only marginal improvements over competitors.
... this is a bubble despite the promise of the technology and anyone paying attention can see it. For all of the dumb money employed in this space to make it out alive, we'll have to at least see a fairly strong form of AGI developed, and by that point the tech will be threatening the general economic stability of the US consumer.
tshaddox · 3h ago
> I started a business that would give people back $9 if they gave me $4
I feel like people overuse this criticism. That's not the only way that companies with a lot of revenue lose money. And this isn't at all what OpenAI is doing, at least from their customers' perspective. It's not like customers are subscribing to ChatGPT simply because it gives them something they were going to buy anyway for cheaper.
nativeit · 3h ago
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when a person holds two contradictory beliefs at the same time.
Even Alibaba is releasing some amazing models these days. Qwen 3 is pretty remarkable, especially considering the variety of hardware the variants of it can run on.
pi-err · 3h ago
Sounds a lot like "Google+ will catch Facebook in no time".
OpenAI has been on a winning streak that makes ChatGPT the default chatbot for most of the planet.
Everybody else like you describe is trying to add some AI crap behind a button on a congested UI.
B2B market will stay open but OpenAI has certainly not peaked yet.
no_wizard · 3h ago
Facebook had immense network effects working for it back then.
What network effect does OpenAI have? Far as I can tell, moving from OpenAI to Gemini or something else is easy. It’s not sticky at all. There’s no “my friends are primarily using OpenAI so I am too” or anything like that.
So again, I ask, what makes it sticky?
miki123211 · 3h ago
OpenAI (or, more specifically, Chat GPT) is CocaCola, not Facebook.
They have the brand recognition and consumer goodwill no other brand in AI has, incredibly so with school students, who will soon go into the professional world and bring that goodwill with them.
I think better models are enough to dethrone OpenAI in API, B2C and internal enterprise use cases, but OpenAI has consumer mindshare, and they're going to be the king of chatbots forever. Unless somebody else figures out something which is better by orders of magnitude and that Open AI can't copy quickly, it's going to stay that way.
Apple had the opportunity to do something really great here. With Siri's deep device integration on one hand and Apple's willingness to force 3rd-party devs to do the right thing for users on the other, they could have had a compelling product that nobody else could copy, but it seems like they're not willing to go that route, mostly for privacy, antitrust and internal competency reasons, in that order. Google is on the right track and might get something similar (although not as polished as typical Apple) done, but Android's mindshare among tech-savvy consumers isn't great enough for it to get traction.
LMYahooTFY · 1h ago
Does Google not have brand recognition and Consumer good will? We might read all sorts of deep opinions of Google on HN, but I think Search and Chrome market share speak themselves. For the average consumer, I'm skeptical that OpenAI carries much weight.
pphysch · 3h ago
> who will soon go into the professional world and bring that goodwill with them.
...Until their employer forces them to use Microsoft Copilot, or Google Gemini, or whatever, because that's what they pay for and what integrates into their enterprise stack. And the new employee shrugs and accepts it.
miki123211 · 2h ago
Just like people are forced to use web Office and Microsoft Teams, and start prefering them over Google Docs and Slack? I don't think so.
JumpCrisscross · 2h ago
> Just like people are forced to use web Office and Microsoft Teams, and start prefering them over Google Docs and Slack? I don't think so
...yes. Office is the market leader. Slack has between a fifth and a fourth of the market. Coca-Cola's products have like 70% market share in the American carbonated soft-drink market [1].
Yep, I mostly interact with these AIs through Cursor. When I want to ask it a question, there's a little dropdown box and I can select openai/anthropic/deepseek whatever model. It's as easy as that to switch.
bsimpson · 3h ago
Most of my exposure to LLMs has been through GitHub's Copilot, which has that same interface.
sanderjd · 3h ago
Yeah but I remember when search first started getting integrated with the browser and the "switch search engine" thing was significantly more prominent. Then Google became the default and nobody ever switched it and the rest is history.
So the interesting question is: How did that happen? Why wasn't Google search an easily swapped commodity? Or if it was, how did they win and defend their default status? Why didn't the existing juggernauts at the time (Microsoft) beat them at this game?
I have my own answers for these, and I'm sure all the smart people figuring out strategy at Open AI have thought about similar things.
It's not clear if Open AI will be able to overcome this commodification issue (personally, I think they won't), but I don't think it's impossible, and there is prior art for at least some of the pages in this playbook.
reasonableklout · 2h ago
Yes, I think people severely underrate the data flywheel effects that distribution gives an ML-based product, which is what Google was and ChatGPT is. It is also an extremely capital-intensive industry to be in, so even if LLMs are commoditized, it will be to the benefit of a few players, and barring a sustained lead by any one company over the others, I suspect the first mover will be very difficult to unseat.
Google is doing well for the moment, but OpenAI just closed a $40 billion round. Neither will be able to rest for a while.
sanderjd · 29m ago
Yeah, a very interesting metric to know would be how many tokens of prompt data (that is allowed to be used for training) the different products are seeing per day.
skydhash · 2h ago
> So the interesting question is: How did that happen? Why wasn't Google search an easily swapped commodity? Or if it was, how did they win and defend their default status? Why didn't the existing juggernauts at the time (Microsoft) beat them at this game?
Maybe the big amount of money they've given to Apple which is their direct competitor in the mobile space. Also good amount of money given to Firefox, which is their direct competitor in the browser space, alongside side Safari from Apple.
Most people don't care about the search engine. The default is what they will used unless said default is bad.
sanderjd · 33m ago
I don't think my comment implied that the answers to these questions aren't knowable! And indeed, I agree that the deals to pay for default status in different channels is a big part of that answer.
So then apply that to Open AI. What are the distribution channels? Should they be paying Cursor to make them the default model? Or who else? Would that work? If not, why not? What's different?
My intuition is that this wouldn't work for them. I think if this "pay to be default" strategy works for someone, it will be one of their deeper pocketed rivals.
But I also don't think this was the only reason Google won search. In my memory, those deals to pay to be the default came fairly long after they had successfully built the brand image as the best search engine. That's how they had the cash to afford to pay for this.
A couple years ago, I thought it seemed likely that Open AI would win the market in that way, by being known as the clear best model. But that seems pretty unclear now! There are a few different models that are pretty similarly capable at this point.
Essentially, I think the reason Google was able to win search whereas the prospects look less obvious for Open AI is that they just have stronger competition!
To me, it just highlights the extent to which the big players at the time of Google's rise - Microsoft, Yahoo, ... Oracle maybe? - really dropped the ball on putting up strong competition. (Or conversely, Google was just further ahead of its time.)
rileyphone · 3h ago
From talking to people, the average user relies on memories and chat history, which is not easy to migrate. I imagine that's the part of the strategy to keep people from hopping model providers.
jjani · 3h ago
Google, MS, Apple and Meta are all quite capable of generating such a history for new users, if they'd like to.
nativeit · 3h ago
That sounds eminently solvable.
jwarden · 3h ago
Brand counts for a lot
fs111 · 3h ago
Google is one of the most valuable brands ever. Everyone knows it. It is even used for "searching the web" openai is not that strong of a brand
schlch · 3h ago
I think for the general public ChatGPT is a much stronger brand than OpenAI itself.
msabalau · 3h ago
No one has a deep emotional connection with OpenAI that would impede switching.
At best they have a bit of cheap tribalism that might prevent some incurious people who don't care much about using the best tools noticing that they aren't.
NBJack · 3h ago
Defacto victory.
Facebook wasn't some startup when Google+ entered the scene; they were already cash flow positive, and had roughly 30% ads market share.
OpenAI is still operating at a loss despite having 50+% of the chatbot "market". There is no easy path to victory for them here.
kranke155 · 3h ago
Facebook couldnt be overtaken because of network effects. What network effects are there to a chatbot.
If you look at Gemini, I know people using it daily.
No comments yet
chrisweekly · 3h ago
IMHO "ChatGPT the default chatbot" is a meaningful but unstable first-mover advantage. The way things are apparently headed, it seems less like Google+ chasing FB, more like Chrome eating IE + NN's lunch.
jameslk · 3h ago
OpenAI is a relatively unknown company outside of the tech bubble. I told my own mom to install Gemini on her phone because she's heard of Google and is more likely going to trust Google with whatever info she dumps into a chat. I can’t think of a reason she would be compelled to use ChatGPT instead.
Consumer brand companies such as Coca Cola and Pepsi spend millions on brand awareness advertising just to be the “default” in everyone’s heads. When there’s not much consequence choosing one option over another, the one you’ve heard of is all that matters
ricardobeat · 3h ago
I know a single person who uses ChatGPT daily, and only because their company has an enterprise subscription.
My impression is that Claude is a lot more popular – and it’s the one I use myself, though as someone else said the vast majority of people, even in software engineering, don’t use AI often at all.
JumpCrisscross · 1h ago
> OpenAI has been on a winning streak that makes ChatGPT the default chatbot for most of the planet
OpenAI has like 10 to 20% market share [1][2]. They're also an American company whose CEO got on stage with an increasingly-hated world leader. There is no universe in which they keep equal access to the world's largest economies.
Social media has the benefit of network effects which is a pretty formidable moat.
This moat is non-existent when it comes to Open AI.
alganet · 3h ago
That reminds me of the Dictator movie.
All dissidents went into Little Wadyia.
When the Dictator himself visited it, he started to fake his name by copying the signs and names he saw on the walls. Everyone knew what he was.
Internet social networks are like that.
Now, this moat thing. That's hilarious.
jjani · 3h ago
The comparison of Chrome and IE is much more apt, IMO, because the deciding factor as other mentioned for social media is network effects, or next-gen dopamine algorithms (TikTok). And that's unique to them.
For example, I'd never suggest that e.g. MS could take on TikTok, despite all the levers they can pull, and being worth magnitudes more. No chance.
kortilla · 3h ago
Most of the planet doesn’t use chat bots at all.
paulddraper · 2h ago
Facebook fundamentally had network effects.
Analemma_ · 3h ago
That's not at all the same thing: social media has network effects that keep people locked in because their friends are there. Meanwhile, most of the people I know using LLMs cancel and resubscribe to Chat-GPT, Claude and Gemini constantly based on whatever has the most buzz that month. There's no lock-in whatsoever in this market, which means they compete on quality, and the general consensus is that Gemini 2.5 is currently winning that war. Of course that won't be true forever, but the point is that OpenAI isn't running away with it anymore.
And nobody's saying OpenAI will go bankrupt, they'll certainly continue to be a huge player in this space. But their astronomical valuation was based on the initial impression that they were the only game in town, and it will come down now that that's no longer true. Hence why Altman wants to cash out ASAP.
parliament32 · 48m ago
Agreed on Google dominance. Gemini models from this year are significantly more helpful than anything from OAI.. and they're being handed out for free to anyone with a Google account.
nfRfqX5n · 3h ago
ask 10 people on the street about chatgpt or gemini and see which one they know
postalrat · 3h ago
Now switch chatgpt and gemini on them and see if they notice.
jjani · 3h ago
Ask 10 people on the street in 2009 about IE and Chrome and ask which one they knew.
The names don't even matter when everything is baked in.
jmathai · 3h ago
That's the wrong question. See how many people know Google vs. ChatGPT. As popular as ChatGPT is, Google's the stronger brand.
TrackerFF · 2h ago
On the other hand...If you asked, 5-6-7 years ago, 100 people which of the following they used:
Slack? Zoom? Teams?
I'm sure you'd get a somewhat uniform distribution.
Ask the same today, and I'd bet most will say Teams. Why Teams? Because it comes with office / windows, so that's what most people will use.
Same logic goes for the AI / language models...which one are people going to use? The ones that are provided as "batteries included" in whatever software or platform they use the most. And for the vast majority of regular people / workers, it is going to be something by microsoft / google / whatever.
kranke155 · 3h ago
thats just brand recognition.
The fact that people know Coca Cola doesnt mean they drink it.
jimbokun · 3h ago
It doesn’t?
That name recognition made Coca Cola into a very successful global corporation.
All4All · 3h ago
But whether the competition will emerge as Pepsi or as RC-Cola is still tbd.
blueprint · 3h ago
or that they would drink it if a well designed, delicious, but no HFCS nor sugar alternative were marketed with funding
jampa · 3h ago
The real money is for enterprise use (via APIs), so public perception is not as crucial as for a consumer product.
charlieyu1 · 1h ago
at least 6-9 months too late
lossolo · 14m ago
> SamA is in a hurry because he's set to lose the race.
OpenAI trained GPT-4.1 and 4.5—both originally intended to be GPT-5 but they were considered disappointments, which is why they were named differently.
Did they really believe that scaling the number of parameters would continue indefinitely without diminishing returns? Not only is there no moat, but there's also no reasonable path forward with this architecture for an actual breakthrough.
moralestapia · 2h ago
Sorry but perhaps you haven't looked at the actual numbers.
I probably need to clarify what I'm talking about, so that peeps like @JumpCrisscross can get a better grasp of it.
I do not mean the total market share of the category of businesses that could be labeled as "AI companies", like Microsoft or NVIDIA, on your first link.
I will not talk about your second link because it does not seem to make sense within the context of this conversation (zero mentions or references to market share).
What I mean is:
* The main product that OpenAI sells is AI models (GPT-4o, etc...)
* OpenAI does not make hardware. OpenAI is not in the business of cloud infrastructure. OpenAI is not in the business of selling smartphones. A comparison between OpenAI and any of those companies would only make sense for someone with a very casual understanding of this topic. I can think of someone, perhaps, who only used ChatGPT a couple times and inferred it was made by Apple because it was there on its phone. This discussion calls for a deeper understanding of what OpenAI is.
* Other examples of companies that sell their own AI models, and thus compete directly with OpenAI in the same market that OpenAI operates by taking a look at their products and services, are Anthropic (w/ Claude), Google (w/ Gemini) and some others ones like Meta and Mistral with open models.
* All those companies/models, together, make up some market that you can put any name you want to it (The AI Model Market TM)
That is the market I'm talking about, and that is the one that I estimated to be 90%+ which was pretty much on point, as usual :).
> that is the market that I'm talking about, and that is the one that I (correctly, as usual) estimated to be around 90% [1][2]
Your second source doesn’t say what it’s measuring and disclaims itself as from its “‘experimental era’ — a beautiful mess of enthusiasm, caffeine, and user-submitted chaos.” Your first link only measures chatbots.
ChatGPT is a chatbot. OpenAI sells AI models, including via ChatGPT. Among chatbots, sure, 84% per your source. (Not “90%+,” as you stated.) But OpenAI makes more than chatbots, and in the broader AI model market, its lead is far from 80+ percent.
TL; DR It is entirely wrong to say the “market share of OpenAI is like 90%+.”
Sorry, I was off by 6% and you're right, I'm usually way more precise in my estimates.
>10%-20%
Lmao, not even in Puchal wildest dreams.
JumpCrisscross · 9m ago
> I'm usually way more precise in my estimates
One, you suggested OP had not “looked at the actual numbers.” That implies you have. If you were just guessing, that’s misleading.
Two, you misquoted (and perhaps misunderstand) a statistic that doesn’t match your claim. Even in your last comment, you defined the market as “companies that sell their own AI models” before doubling down on the chatbot-only figure.
> not even in Puchal wildest dreams
Okay, so what’s your source? Because so far you’ve put forward two sources, a retracted one and one that measures a single product that you went ahead and misquoted.
fooker · 3h ago
Google is pretty far behind. They have random one off demos and they beat benchmarks yes, but try to use Google’s AI stuff for real work and it falls apart really fast.
adastra22 · 3h ago
People are using Gemini for real work. I prefer Claude myself, but Gemini is as good (or alternatively: as bad) as OpenAI’s models.
The only thing OpenAI has right now is the ChatGPT name, which has become THE word for modern LLMs among lay people.
Anecdotally, I've switched to Gemini as my daily driver for complex coding tasks. I prefer Claude's cleaner code, but it is less capable at difficult problems, and Anthropic's servers are unreliable.
Nuzzerino · 3h ago
Define “real work”
drewbeck · 4h ago
I see OpenAI's original form as the last gasp of a kind of liberal tech; in a world where "doing good" was seen as very important, the non-profit approach made sense and got a lot of people on board. These days the Altmans and the pmarcas of the world are much more comfortable expressing their authoritarian, self-centered world views; the "evolving" structure of Open AI is fully in line with that. They want to be the kings they always thought of themselves as, and now they get to do so without couching it in "doing good".
stego-tech · 3h ago
That world never existed. Yes, pockets did - IT professionals with broadband lines and spare kit hosting IRC servers and phpBB forums from their homes free of charge, a few VC-funded companies offering idealistic visions of the net until funding ran dry (RIP CoHost) - but once the web became privatized, it was all in service of the bottom line by companies. Web 2.0 onwards was all about centralization, surveillance, advertising, and manipulation of the populace at scale - and that intent was never really a secret to those who bothered to pay attention. While the world was reeling from Cambridge Analytica, us pre-1.0 farts who cut our teeth on Telnet and Mosaic were just kind of flabbergasted that ya'll were surprised by overtly obvious intentions.
That doesn't mean it has to always be this way, though. Back when I had more trust in the present government and USPS, I mused on how much of a game changer it might be for the USPS to provide free hosting and e-mail to citizens, repurposing the glut of unused real estate into smaller edge compute providers. Everyone gets a web server and 5GB of storage, with 1A Protections letting them say and host whatever they like from their little Post Office Box. Everyone has an e-mail address tied to their real identity, with encryption and security for digital mail just like the law provides for physical mail. I still think the answer is about enabling more people to engage with the internet on their selective terms (including the option of disengagement), rather than the present psychological manipulation everyone engages in to keep us glued to our screens, tethered to our phones, and constantly uploading new data to advertisers and surveillance firms alike.
But the nostalgic view that the internet used to be different is just that: rose-tinted memories of a past that never really existed. The first step to fixing this mess is acknowledging its harm.
dgreensp · 2h ago
I don’t think the parent was saying that everyone’s intentions were pure until recently, but rather that naked greed wasn’t cool before, but now it is.
The Internet has changed a lot over the decades, and it did used to be different, with the differences depending on how many years you go back.
jon_richards · 2h ago
As recently as the Silicon Valley tv show, the joke was that every startup pitch claimed they were “making the world a better place”.
pdfernhout · 10m ago
Coincidentally, and as another pre-1.0 fart myself :-) -- one who remembers when Ted Nelson's "Computer Lib / Dream Machines" was still just a wild hope -- I was thinking of something similar the other day (not USPS-specific for hosting, but I like that).
It was sparked by going to a video conference "Hyperlocal Heroes: Building Community Knowledge in the Digital Age" hosted by New_ Public:
https://newpublic.org/
"Reimagine social media: We are researchers, engineers, designers, and community leaders working together to explore creating digital public spaces where people can thrive and connect."
A not-insignificant amount of time in that one-hour teleconference was spent related to funding models for local social media and local reporting.
Afterwards, I got to thinking. The USA spent literally trillions of dollars on the (so-many-problematical-things-about-it-I-better-stop-now) Iraq war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
"According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 including interest."
Or, from a different direction, the USA spends about US$200 billion per year on mostly-billboard-free roads:
https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...
"In 2021, state and local governments provided three-quarters of highway and road funding ($154 billion) and federal transfers accounted for $52 billion (25 percent)."
That's about US$700 per person per year on US roads.
So, clearly huge amounts of money are available in the USA if enough people think something is important. Imagine if a similar amount of money went to funding exactly what you outlined -- a free web presence for distributed social media -- with an infrastructure funded by tax dollars instead of advertisements. Isn't a healthy social media system essential to 21st century online democracy with public town squares?
And frankly such a distributed social media ecosystem in the USA might be possible for at most a tenth of what roads cost, like perhaps US$70 per person per year (or US$20 billion per year)?
Yes, there are all sorts of privacy and free speech issues to work through -- but it is not like we don't have those all now with the advertiser-funded social media systems we have. So, it is not clear to me that such a system would be immensely worse than what we have.
But what do I know? :-) Here was a previous big government suggestion be me from 2010 -- also mostly ignored (until now 15 years later the USA is in political crisis over supply chain dependency and still isn't doing anything very related to it yet):
"Build 21000 flexible fabrication facilities across the USA"
https://web.archive.org/web/20100708160738/http://pcast.idea...
"Being able to make things is an important part of prosperity, but that capability (and related confidence) has been slipping away in the USA. The USA needs more large neighborhood shops with a lot of flexible machine tools. The US government should fund the construction of 21,000 flexible fabrication facilities across the USA at a cost of US$50 billion, places where any American can go to learn about and use CNC equipment like mills and lathes and a variety of other advanced tools and processes including biotech ones. That is one for every town and county in the USA. These shops might be seen as public extensions of local schools, essentially turning the shops of public schools into more like a public library of tools. This project is essential to US national security, to provide a technologically literate populace who has learned about post-scarcity technology in a hands-on way. The greatest challenge our society faces right now is post-scarcity technology (like robots, AI, nanotech, biotech, etc.) in the hands of people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity (whether in big organizations or in small groups). This project would help educate our entire society about the potential of these technologies to produce abundance for all."
JumpCrisscross · 1h ago
> That world never existed
It absolutely did. Steve Wozniak was real. Silicon Valley wasn't always a hive of liars and sycophants.
davesque · 1h ago
I have to agree. That's one of the dangers of today's world; the risk of believing that we never had a better one. Yes, the altruism of yesteryear was partially born of convenience, but it still existed. And I remember people actually believing it was important and acting as such. Today's cynicism and selfishness seem a lot more arbitrary to me. There's absolutely no reason things have to be this way. Collectively, we have access to more wealth and power now than we ever did previously. By all accounts, things ought to be great. It seems we just need the current generation of leaders to re-learn a few lessons from history.
ballooney · 3h ago
Hopelessly over-idealistic premise. Sama and pg have never been anything other than opportunistic muck. This will be my last ever comment on HN.
drewbeck · 3h ago
Oh I'm not saying they every believed more than their self-centered views, but that in a world that leaned more liberal there was value in trying to frame their work in those terms. Now there's no need to pretend.
kmacdough · 35m ago
And to those who "say" at least now they're honest, I say "WHY?!" Unconditionally being "good" would be better than disguising selfishness as good. But that's not really a thing. Having to maintain the presence of doing good puts significant boundaries on what you can get away with, and increases the consequence when people uncover some shit.
Condoning "honest liars" enables a whole other level of open and unrestricted criminality.
byearthithatius · 3h ago
I feel this so hard, I think this may be my last time using the site as well. They don't care about advancement, they only care about money.
stego-tech · 3h ago
Like everything, it's projection. Those who loudly scream against something are almost always the ones engaging in it.
Google screamed against service revenue and advertising while building the world's largest advertising empire. Facebook screamed against misinformation and surveillance while enabling it on a global scale. Netflix screamed against the overpriced cable TV industry while turning streaming into modern overpriced cable television. Uber screamed against the entrenched taxi industry harming workers and passengers while creating an unregulated monster that harmed workers and passengers.
Altman and OpenAI are no different in this regard, loudly screaming against AI harming humanity while doing everything in their capacity to create AI tools that will knowingly harm humanity while enriching themselves.
If people trust the performance instead of the actions and their outcomes, then we can't convince them otherwise.
HaZeust · 3h ago
inb4 deleted
gallerdude · 3h ago
bye
jimbokun · 2h ago
They deeply believe in the Ayn Rand mindset that the system that brings them the most individual wealth is also the best system for humanity as a whole.
ignoramous · 3h ago
> They want to be the kings they always thought of themselves as, and now they get to do so without couching it in "doing good".
You mean, AGI will benefit all of humanity like War on Terror spread democracy?
nickff · 3h ago
Why are you changing the subject? The “War on Terror” was never intended to spread democracy as far as I know; democracy was a means by which to achieve the objective of safety from terrorism.
sneak · 3h ago
Is it reasonable to assign the descriptor “authoritarian” to anyone who simply does not subscribe to the common orthodoxy of one faction in the american culture war? That is what it seems to me is happening here, though I would love to be wrong.
I have not seen anything from sama or pmarca that I would classify as “authoritarian”.
tastyface · 3h ago
Donating millions to a fascist president (in Altman’s case) seems pretty authoritarian to me. And he seems happy enough hanging out with Thiel and other Yarvin groupies.
sidibe · 2h ago
Yup, if Elon hadn't gotten so jealous and spiteful to him I'm sure he'd be one of Elon's leading sycophants.
bee_rider · 3h ago
I’m not sure exactly what they meant by “liberal” in this case, but since they put it in contrast with authoritarianism, I assume they meant it in the conventional definition of the word (where it is the polar opposite of authoritarianism). Instead of the American politics-as-sports definition that makes it a synonym for “team blue.”
drewbeck · 3h ago
correct. "liberal" as in the general ideas that ie expanding the franchise is important, press freedoms are good, that government can do good things for people and for capital etc. Wikipedia's intro paragraph does a good job of describing what I was getting at (below). In prior decades Republicans in the US would have been categorized as "liberal" under this definition; in recent years, not so much.
>Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various and often mutually conflicting views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.
sanderjd · 3h ago
No, "authoritarian" is a word with a specific meaning. I'm not sure about applying it to Sam Altman, but Marc Andreessen has expressed views that I consider authoritarian in his victory lap tour since last year's presidential election.
drewbeck · 3h ago
No I don't think it is. I DO think those two people want to be in charge (along with other billionaires) and they want the rest of us to follow along, which is in my book an authoritarian POV. pmarca's recent "VC is the only job that can't be done by AI" is a good example of that; the rest of us are to be managed and controlled by VCs and robots.
blibble · 3h ago
are you aware of worldcoin?
altman building a centralised authority of who will be classed as "human" is about as authoritarian as you could get
sneak · 3h ago
Worldcoin is opt-in, which is the opposite of authoritarian. Nobody who doesn’t like it is required to participate.
amdsn · 3h ago
it is opt in until they manage to convince some government to allow them to be the contracted provider of "humanness verification" that is then made a prerequisite to access services.
sholladay · 3h ago
Comcast is also opt-in. Except, in many areas there are no real alternatives.
I doubt Worldcoin will actually manage to corner the market. But the point is, if it did, bad things would happen. Though, that’s probably true of most products.
fsndz · 3h ago
it's always opt-in until it isn't
pants2 · 4h ago
It's somewhat odd to me that many companies operating in the public eye are basically stating "We are creating a digital god, an instrument more powerful than any nuclear weapon" and raising billions to do it, and nobody bats an eye...
The US government probably doesn't think it's behind.
Right now it's operated by a bunch of people who think that you can directly relate the amount of money a venture could make in the next 90 days to its net benefit for society. Government telling them how they can and cannot make that money, in their minds, is government telling them that they cannot bring maximum benefit to society.
Now, is this mindset myopic to everything that most people have in their lived experience? Is it ethically bankrupt and held by people who'd sell their own mothers for a penny if they otherwise couldn't get that penny? Would those people be banished to a place beyond human contact for the rest of their existence by functioning organs of an even somewhat-sane society?
I don't know. I'm just asking questions.
azinman2 · 4h ago
Unless China handicaps the their progress as well (which they won’t, see made in China 2025), all you’re doing is handing the future to deepseek et al.
esafak · 4h ago
What kind of a future is that? If China marches towards a dystopia, why should Europe dutifully follow?
We can selectively ban uses without banning the technology wholesale; e.g., nuclear power generation is permitted, while nuclear weapons are strictly controlled.
BeetleB · 3h ago
> If China marches towards a dystopia, why should Europe dutifully follow?
I think the more relevant question is: Do you want to live in a Chinese dystopia, or a European one?
esafak · 3h ago
A European dystopia won't be AI borne, so this is a false dilemma.
BeetleB · 3h ago
What I meant is: Europe can choose to regulate as they do, and end up living in a Chinese dystopia because the Chinese will drastically benefit from non-regulated AI, or they can create their own AI dystopia.
A non-AI dystopia is the least likely scenario.
esafak · 3h ago
If you are suggesting that China may use AI to attack Europe, they can invest in defense without unleashing AI domestically. And I don't think China will become a utopia with unregulated AI. My impression after having visited it was not one of a utopia, and knowing how they use technology, I don't think AI will usher it in, because our visions of utopia are at odds. They may well enjoy what they have. But if things go sideways they may regret it too.
JumpCrisscross · 1h ago
> China may use AI to attack Europe
No, just control. America exerts influence and control over Europe without having had to attack it in generations.
Muromec · 3h ago
Not attack, just influence. Destabilize if you want. Advocate regime change, sabotage trust in institution. Being on a defense in a propaganda war doesn't really work.
With US already having lost ideologigal war with russia and China, Europe is very much next
BeetleB · 3h ago
> If you are suggesting that China may use AI to attack Europe
No - I'm suggesting that China will reap the benefits of AI much more than Europe will, and they will eclipse Europe economically. Their dominance will follow, and they'll be able to dictate terms to other countries (just as the US is doing, and has been doing).
> And I don't think China will become a utopia with unregulated AI.
Did you miss all the places I used the word "dystopia"?
> My impression after having visited it was not one of a utopia, and knowing how they use technology, I don't think AI will usher it in, because our visions of utopia are at odds. They may well enjoy what they have.
Comparing China when I was a kid, not that long ago, to what it is now: It is a dystopia, and that dystopia is responsible for much of the improvements they've made. Enjoying what they have doesn't mean it's not a dystopia. Most people don't understand how willing humans are to live in a dystopia if it improves their condition significantly (not worrying too much about food, shelter, etc).
alasano · 4h ago
We don't know whether pushing towards AGI is marching towards a dystopia.
If it's winner takes all for the first company/nation to have AGI (presuming we can control it), then slowing down progress of any kind with regulation is a risk.
I don't think there's a good enough analogy to be made, like your nuclear power/weapons example.
The hypothetical benefits of an aligned AGI outweigh those of any other technology by orders of magnitude.
esafak · 4h ago
As with nuclear weapons, there is non-negligible probability of wiping out the human race. The companies developing AI have not solved the alignment problem, and OpenAI even dismantled what programs it had on it. They are not going to invest in it unless forced to.
We should not be racing ahead because China is, but investing energy in alignment research and international agreements.
troupo · 3h ago
> We don't know whether pushing towards AGI is marching towards a dystopia.
We do know that. By literally looking at China.
> The hypothetical benefits of an aligned AGI outweigh those of any other technology by orders of magnitude.
AGI aligned with whom?
nicce · 4h ago
This thought process it not different than it was with nuclear weapons.
The primary difference is the observability - with satellites we had some confidence that other nations respected treaties, or that they had enough reaction time for mutual destruction, but with this AI development we lack all that.
lukas099 · 3h ago
Yes, it was the same with nukes, each side had to build them because the other side was building them.
bpodgursky · 3h ago
Only countries with nuclear weapons had an actual seat at the table when the world banned new nuclear weapon programs.
nicce · 3h ago
That is why we see the current AI competition and some attempts from companies to regulate it so that "it is safe only in their hands".
Mostly OpenAI and DeepMind and it stunk of 'pulling up the drawbridge behind them' and pivoting from actual harm to theoretical harm.
For a crowd supposedly entrenched in startups, it's amazing everyone here is so slow to recognise it's all funding pitches and contract bidding.
jimbokun · 2h ago
US government is behind because Biden admin were pushing strongly for controls and regulations and told Andersen and friends exactly that, who then went and did everything in their power to elect Trump, who then put those same tech bros in charge of making his AI policy.
saubeidl · 4h ago
The EU does and has passed the AI act to reign in the worst consequences of this nuclear weapon. It has not been received well around here.
The "digital god" angle might explain why. For many, this has become a religious movement, a savior for an otherwise doomed economic system.
rchaud · 4h ago
Absolutely. It's frankly quite shocking to see how otherwise atheist or agnostic people have so quickly begun worshipping at the altar of "inevitable AGI apocalypse", much in the same way as how extremist Christians await the rapture.
Xenoamorphous · 3h ago
I guess they think that the “digital god” has a chance to become real (and soon, even), unlike the non-digital one?
rchaud · 2h ago
We'll be debating whether or not "AGI is here" in philosophical terms, in the same way people debate if God is real, for years to come. To say nothing of the untaxed "nonprofit" status these institutions share.
Omnipotent deities can never be held responsible for famine and natural disasters ("God has a plan for us all"). AI currently has the same get-out-of-jail free card where mistakes that no literate human would ever make are handwaved away as "hallucinations" that can be exorcised with a more sophisticated training model ("prayers").
lenerdenator · 4h ago
Roko's Basilisk is basically Pascal's wager with GPUs.
No comments yet
modeless · 4h ago
I don't know what sources you're reading. There's so much eye-batting I'm surprised people can see at all.
jimbokun · 2h ago
Most of us are batting our eyelashes as rapidly as possible but have no idea how to stop it.
xandrius · 1h ago
How is an LLM more powerful than any nuclear weapon? Seriously curious.
atleastoptimal · 3h ago
Because many people fundamentally don’t believe AGI is possible at a basic level, even AI researchers. Humans tend to only understand what materially affects their existence.
otabdeveloper4 · 4h ago
Well, because it's obviously bullshit and everyone knows it. Just play the game and get rich like everyone else.
esafak · 4h ago
Are you sure about that? AI-powered robotic soldiers are around the corner. What could go wrong...
devinprater · 3h ago
Ooo I know, Cybermen! Yay.
bluelightning2k · 2h ago
Turns out the non profit structure wasn't very profitable
martinohansen · 3h ago
Imagine having a mission of “ensure[ing] that artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits all of humanity” while also believing that it can only be trusted in the hands of the few
> A lot of people around OpenAI in the early days thought AI should only be in the hands of a few trusted people who could “handle it”.
jb_rad · 2h ago
He's very clearly stating that trusting AI to a few hands was an old, naiive idea that they have evolved from. Which establishes their need to keep evolving as the technology matures.
There is a lot to criticize about OpenAI and Sama, but this isn't it.
TZubiri · 3h ago
To the benefit of OpenAI. I think LLMs would still exist, but we wouldn't have access to them.
Whether they are a net positive or a net negative is arguable. If it's a net negative, then unleashing them to the masses was maybe the danger itself.
modeless · 4h ago
Huh, so Elon's lawsuit worked? The nonprofit will retain control? Or is this just spin on a plan that will eventually still sideline the nonprofit?
blagie · 3h ago
To be specific: The nonprofit currently retains control. It will stop once more dilution sets in.
j_maffe · 4h ago
It more sounds like the district attorneys won
Tenoke · 4h ago
For better or worse, OpenAI removing the capped structure and turning the nonprofit from AGI considerations to just philanthropy feels like the shedding of the last remnants of sanctity.
lolinder · 4h ago
So the non-profit retains control but we all know that Altman controls the board of the non-profit and I'd be shocked if he won't have significant stock in the new for-profit (from TFA: "we are moving to a normal capital structure where everyone has stock"). Which means that regardless of whether the non-profit has control on paper, OpenAI is now even better structured for Sam Altman's personal enrichment.
No more caps on profit, a simpler structure to sell to investors, and Altman can finally get that 7% equity stake he's been eyeing. Not a bad outcome for him given the constraints apparently imposed on them by "the Attorney General of Delaware and the Attorney General of California".
elAhmo · 4h ago
We have seen how much power does the board have after the firing of Altman - none.
Let's see how this plays out. PBC effectively means nothing - just take a look at Xai and its purchase of Twitter. I would love to listen reasoning explaining why this ~33 billion USD move is benefiting public.
paulddraper · 2h ago
The board had plenty of power.
There was never a coherent explanation of its firing the CEO.
But they could have stuck with that decision if they believed in it.
michaelt · 2h ago
The explanation seemed pretty obvious to me: They set up a nonprofit to deliver an AI that was Open.
Then things went unexpectedly well, people were valuing them at billions of dollars, and they suddenly decided they weren't open any more. Suddenly they were all about Altman's Interests Safety (AI Safety for short).
The board tried to fulfil its obligation to get the nonprofit to do the things in its charter, and they were unsuccessful.
freejazz · 2h ago
The question is not if they could, it is if they would.
insane_dreamer · 1h ago
The explanation was pretty clear and coherent: The CEO was no longer adhering to the mission of the non-profit (which the board was upholding).
But they found themselves alone in that it turns out the employees (who were employed by the for-profit company) and investors (MSFT in particular) didn't care about the mission and wanted to follow the money instead.
So the board had no choice but to capitulate and leave.
ignoramous · 3h ago
> We have seen how much power does the board have after the firing of Altman - none.
Right; so, "Worker Unions" work.
wmf · 3h ago
ChatGPT is free. That's the public benefit.
patmcc · 2h ago
Google offers a great many things for free. Should they get beneficial tax treatment for it?
wmf · 2h ago
PBCs have no beneficial tax treatment and neither does OpenAI.
patmcc · 2h ago
Huh. Then yah, what the heck? Why not just be a regular corp?
jampekka · 1h ago
Branding, and perhaps a demand from the judges. In practice it doesn't mean anything if/when they stuff the board with people who want to run it as a normal LLC.
moralestapia · 2h ago
So, what's the point of a PBC?
Not being snarky here, like what is the purported thesis behind them?
nemomarx · 2h ago
marketing to certain types of philanthropic investors? I think
insane_dreamer · 1h ago
Mostly branding, like Google's "do no evil"
Some founders truly believe in structuring the company for the benefit of the public, but Altman has already shown he's not one of them.
sekai · 3h ago
They don't collect data?
wmf · 2h ago
If you use it, that means you received more value than you gave up. It's called consumer surplus.
jaccola · 2h ago
If I pay £200,000 for a car, I received more value than I gave up, otherwise I wouldn't have given the owner £200,000 for her car. No reasonable person would say the car was "free"...
JumpCrisscross · 2h ago
> If you use it, that means you received more value than you gave up. It's called consumer surplus
This is true for literally any transaction. Actually, it's true for any rational action. If you're being tortured, and you decide it's not worth it to keep your secrets hidden any longer, you get more than you give up when you stop being tortured.
klabb3 · 2h ago
It’s only true in theory and over a single transaction, not necessarily over time. The hack that VCs have exploited for decades now is subsidizing products and acquiring competition to eventually enshittify. In this case, when OpenAI dials up the inevitable enshittification, they’ll have gotten a ton of data from their users to use for their proprietary closed AI.
patmcc · 2h ago
That's effectively every business that isn't a complete rent-seeking monopoly. It's not a very good measure.
edit: to be clear, it's not a bad thing - we should want companies that create consumer surplus. But that's the default state of companies in a healthy market.
nativeit · 3h ago
Define “free”.
Nuzzerino · 3h ago
It’s like a free beer, but it’s Bud Light, lukewarm, and your reaction to tasting the beer goes toward researching ways to make you appreciate the lukewarm Bud Light for its marginal value, rather than making that beer taste better or less unhealthy. They’ll try very hard to convince you that they have though. It parallels their approach to AI Alignment.
Etheryte · 2h ago
This description has no business being as spot on as it is.
throwanem · 2h ago
Makes me glad I haven't tried the Kool-aid. Uh, crap - 'scuse me, craft - IPA. Uh, beer.
windsignaling · 3h ago
I don't pay money for it?
fooker · 3h ago
free as in free beer
insane_dreamer · 1h ago
That's like saying AWS is free. ChatGPT has a limited use free tier just like most other SaaS products out there.
richardw · 2h ago
Or, alternatively, it’s much harder to fight with one hand behind your back. They need to be able to compete for resources and talent given the market structure, or they fail on the mission.
This is already impossibly hard. Approximately zero people commenting would be able to win this battle in Sam’s shoes. What would they need to do to begin to have a chance? Rather than make all the obvious comments “bad evil man wants to get rich”, think what it would take to achieve the mission. What would you need to do in his shoes, aside from just give up and close up shop? Probably this, at the very least.
Edit: I don’t know the guy and many near YC do. So I accept there may be a lens I don’t have. But I’d rather discuss the problem, not the person.
kadushka · 2h ago
It seems like they lost most of their top talent - probably because of Altman.
k__ · 1h ago
The moment we stop treating "bad evil man wants to ge it rich" as a straw man, we can heal.
thegreatpeter · 1h ago
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! "Bad evil man wants to get rich! We should enrich Google and Microsoft instead!"
whynotminot · 3h ago
Isn’t Sam already very rich? I mean it wouldn’t be the first time a guy wanted to be even richer, but I feel like we need to be more creative when divining his intentions
sigilis · 2h ago
Why would we need to be more creative? The explanation of him wanting more money is perfectly adequate.
Being rich results in a kind of limitation of scope for ambition. To the sufferer, a person who has everything they could want, there is no other objective worth having. They become eccentric and they pursue more money.
We should have enrichment facilities for these people where they play incremental games and don’t ruin the world like the paperclip maximizers they are.
whynotminot · 2h ago
> Why would we need to be more creative? The explanation of him wanting more money is perfectly adequate.
Being rich results in a kind of limitation of scope for ambition.
The dude announces new initiatives from the White House, regularly briefs Senators and senior DoD leaders, and is the top get for interviews around the world for AI topics.
There’s a lot more to be ambitious about than just money.
sigilis · 1h ago
These are all activities he is engaging in to generate money through the company he has a stake in. None of those activities have a purpose other than selling the work of his company and presenting it as a good investment which is how he gets money.
Maybe he wants to use the money in some nebulous future way, subjugating all people in a way that deals with his childhood trauma or whatever. That’s also something rich people do when they need a hobby aside from gathering more money. It’s not their main goal, except when they run into setbacks.
People are not complicated when they are money hoarders. They might have had hidden depths once, but they are thin furrows in the ground next to the giant piles of money that define them now.
Google/Anthropic are catching up, or already surpassed.
6510 · 1h ago
how? The internet says 400 m weekly chatgpt users, 19 m weekly Anthropic, 47.3 m Monthly Gemini, Grok 6.7 m daily, 430 m Baidu.
Yizahi · 1h ago
It seems a defining feature of nearly every single extremely rich person is their belief that they somehow are smarter than filthy peasants, and so he decides to "educate" them of the sacred knowledge. This may take vastly different forms - genocide, war, trying to create via bribes a better government, create a city from scratch, create a new corporate "culture", do public proselytizing of their "do better" faith, write books, classes etc.
St. Altman plans to create a corporate god for us dumb schmucks, and he will be it's prophet.
MPSFounder · 2h ago
Never understood his appeal. Lacks charisma. Not technically savvy relative to many engineers at OpenAI(I doubt he would pass their own intern interviews, even less so their FT). Very unlikeable in person (comes off as fake for some reason, like a political plant). Who is vouching for this guy. When I met him, for some reason, he reminded me of Thiel. He is no Jobs
gsibble · 2h ago
Altman is a clear sociopath. He's a sales guy and good executive. But he's only out for himself.
everybodyknows · 4h ago
> transition to a Public Benefit Corporation
Can some business person give us a summary on PBCs vs. alternative registrations?
fheisler · 4h ago
A PBC is just a for-profit company that has _some_ sort of specific mandate to benefit the "public good" - however it chooses to define that. It's generally meant to provide some balance toward societal good over the more common, strictly shareholder profit-maximizing alternative.
(IANAL but run a PBC that uses this charter[1] and have written about it here[2] as part of our biennial reporting process.)
The charter of a public-benefit corporation gives the company's board and management a bit of legal cover for making decisions that don't serve to maximize, or may even limit, financial returns to shareholders, when those decisions are made for the benefit of the public.
blagie · 3h ago
Reality: It is the same as any other for-profit with a better-sounding name. It confuses a lot of people into thinking it's a non-profit without being one.
Theory: It allows the CEO to make decisions motivated not just by maximizing shareholder value but by some other social good. Of course, very few PBC CEOs choose to do that.
imkevinxu · 4h ago
you could've just asked this to chatgpt....
A_Duck · 1h ago
This is the moment where we fumble the opportunity to avoid a repeat of Web 1.0's ad-driven race to the bottom
Look forward to re-living that shift from life-changing community resource to scammy and user-hostile
datadrivenangel · 4h ago
"Instead of our current complex capped-profit structure—which made sense when it looked like there might be one dominant AGI effort but doesn’t in a world of many great AGI companies—we are moving to a normal capital structure where everyone has stock. This is not a sale, but a change of structure to something simpler."
OpenAI admitting that they're not going to win?
etruong42 · 3h ago
The intro sounds awfully familiar...
> Sam’s Letter to Employees.
> OpenAI is not a normal company and never will be.
Where did I hear something like that before...
> Founders' IPO Letter
> Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one.
I wonder if it's intentional or perhaps some AI-assisted regurgitation prompted by "write me a successful letter to introduce a new corporate structure of a tech company".
ru552 · 5h ago
I wonder if this meets the requirements set by the recent round of outside investors?
Matt Levine on OpenAI's weird capped return structure in November 2023:
And the investors wailed and gnashed their teeth but it’s true, that is what they agreed to, and they had no legal recourse. And OpenAI’s new CEO, and its nonprofit board, cut them a check for their capped return and said “bye” and went back to running OpenAI for the benefit of humanity. It turned out that a benign, carefully governed artificial superintelligence is really good for humanity, and OpenAI quickly solved all of humanity’s problems and ushered in an age of peace and abundance in which nobody wanted for anything or needed any Microsoft products. And capitalism came to an end.
* The nonprofit is staying the same, and will continue to control the for-profit entity OpenAI created to raise capital
* The for-profit is changing from a capped-profit LLC to a PBC like Anthropic and Xai
* These changes have been at least tacitly agreed to by the attorneys general of California and Delaware
* The non-profit won’t be the largest shareholder in the PBC (likely Microsoft) but will retain control (super voting shares?)
* OpenAI thinks there will be multiple labs that achieve AGI, although possibly on different timelines
foobiekr · 4h ago
Another possibility is that OpenAL thinks _none_ of the labs will achieve AGI in a meaningful timeframe so they are trying to cash out with whatever you want to call the current models. There will only be one or two of those before investors start looking at the incredible losses.
r00fus · 4h ago
I'm fairly sure that OpenAI has never really believed in AGI - it's like with Uber and "self driving cabs" - it's a lure for the investors.
It's just that this bait has a shelf life and it looks like it's going to expire soon.
LetsGetTechnicl · 1h ago
Can't wait to hear Ed Zitron's take on this
photochemsyn · 3h ago
The recent flap over ChatGPT's fluffery/flattery/glazing of users doesn't bode well for the direction that OpenAI is headed in. Someone at the outfit appeared to think that giving users a dopamine hit would increase time-spent-on-app or some other metric - and that smells like contempt for the intelligence of the user base and a manipulative approach designed not to improve the quality of the output, but to addict the user population to the ChatGPT experience. Your own personal yes-person to praise everything you do, how wonderful. Perfect for writing the scripts for government cabinent ministers to recite when the grand poobah-in-chief comes calling, I suppose.
What it really says is that if a user wants to control the interaction and get the useful responses, direct programmatic calls to the API that control the system prompt are going to be needed. And who knows how much longer even that will be allowed? As ChatGPT reports,
> "OpenAI has updated the ChatGPT UI (especially in GPT-4-turbo and ChatGPT Plus environments) to no longer expose the full system prompt or baseline prompt directly."
nova22033 · 38m ago
>current complex capped-profit structure
Is OpenAI making a profit?
mrandish · 1h ago
I agree that this is simply Altman extending his ability to control, shape and benefit from OpenAI. Yes, this is clearly (further) subverting the original intent under which the org was created - and that's unfortunate. But in terms of impact on the world, or even just AI safety, I'm not sure the governance of OpenAI matters all that much anymore. The "governance" wasn't that great after the first couple years and OpenAI hasn't been "open" since long before the board spat.
More crucially, since OpenAI's founding and especially over the past 18 months, it's grown increasingly clear that AI leadership probably won't be dominated by one company, progress of "frontier models" is stalling while costs are spiraling, and 'Foom' AGI scenarios are highly unlikely anytime soon. It looks like this is going to be a much longer, slower slog than some hoped and others feared.
bjacobso · 3h ago
I think the main issue is they accidentally created an incredible consumer brand with ChatGPT. They should sell that asset to World.
ramesh31 · 4h ago
The explosion of PBC structured corps recently has me thinking it must just be a tax loophole at this point. I can't possibly imagine there is any meaningful enforcement around any of its restrictions or guidelines.
asadotzler · 2h ago
Not a loophole as they pay taxes (unlike non-profits) but a fig leaf to cover commercial activity with some feel-good label. The real purpose of PBC is the legal protection it may afford to the company from shareholders unhappy with less than maximal profit generation. It gives the board some legal space to do some good if they choose to but has no mandate like real non-profits which get a tax break for creating a public good or service, a tax break that can be withdrawn if they do not annually prove that public benefit to the IRS.
bloudermilk · 3h ago
PBCs don’t get special tax treatment. As far as I know they’re taxed exactly the same as typical C or S corps.
ralph84 · 2h ago
It’s not a tax thing, it’s a power thing. PBCs transfer power from shareholders to management as long as management can say they were acting for a public benefit.
bloppe · 3h ago
Does anybody outside OAI still think of them as anything other that a "normal" for-profit company?
eximius · 2h ago
Again?
alganet · 1h ago
Can you commit to a "swords into ploughshares" goal?
We know it's a sword. And there's war, yadda yadda. However, let's do the cultivating thing instead.
What other AI players we need to convince?
jethronethro · 3h ago
Ed Zitron's going to have a field day with this ...
I_am_tiberius · 2h ago
Still waiting for o3-Pro.
TZubiri · 3h ago
I'm not gonna get caught in the details, I'm just going to assume this is legalese cognitive dissonance to avoid saying "we want this to stop being an NFP because we want the profits."
m3kw9 · 1h ago
This sounds like a good middle ground between going full capitalism and non-profit. This way they can still raise money and also have the same mission, but a weakened one. You can't have everything.
byearthithatius · 3h ago
[removed]
sho_hn · 3h ago
No, it's good that you feel this. Don't give up on tech, protest.
I've been feeling for some time now that we're sort of in the Vietnam War era of the tech industry.
I feel a strong urge to have more "ok, so where do we go from here?" and "what does a tech industry that promotes net good actually look like?" internal discourse in the community of practice, and some sort of ethical social contract for software engineering.
The open source movement has been fabulous and sometimes adjacent to or one aspect of these concerns, but really we need a movement for socially conscious and responsible software.
We need a tech counter-culture. We had one once, but now we need one.
cjpearson · 3h ago
Not all non-profits are doomed. It's natural that the biggest companies will be the ones who have growth and profit as their primary goal.
But there are still plenty of mission-focused technology non-profits out there. Many of which have lasted decades. For example: Linux Foundation, Internet Archive, Mozilla, Wikimedia, Free Software Foundation, and Python Software Foundation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm also disappointed in the direction and actions of big tech, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss the non-profit foundations. They aren't worth a trillion dollars, however they are still doing good and important work.
languagehacker · 3h ago
amen brother
ToucanLoucan · 4h ago
> Our mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits all of humanity.
Then why is it paywalled? Why are you making/have made people across the world sift through the worst material on offer by the wide uncensored Internet to train your LLMs? Why do you have a for-profit LLC operating under a non-profit, or for that matter, a "Public Benefit Corporation" that has to answer to shareholders at all?
Related to that:
> or the needs for hundreds of billions of dollars of compute to train models and serve users.
How does that serve humanity? Redirecting billions of dollars to fancy autocomplete who's power demands strain already struggling electrical grids and offset the gains of green energy worldwide?
> A lot of people around OpenAI in the early days thought AI should only be in the hands of a few trusted people who could “handle it”.
No, we thought your plagiarism machine was a disgusting abuse of the public square, and to be clear, this criticism would've been easily handled by simply requesting people opt-in to have their material used for AI training. But we all know why you didn't do that, don't we Sam.
> It will of course not be all used for good, but we trust humanity and think the good will outweigh the bad by orders of magnitude.
Well so far, we've got vulnerable, lonely people being scammed on Facebook, we've got companies charging subscriptions for people to sext their chatbots, we've got various states using it to target their opposition for military intervention, and the White House may have used it to draft the dumbest basis for a trade war in human history. Oh and fake therapists too.
When's the good kick in?
> We believe this is the best path forward—AGI should enable all of humanity^1 to benefit each other.
^1 who subscribe to our services
Lalabadie · 4h ago
> Then why is it paywalled? Why are you making/have made people across the world sift through the worst material on offer by the wide uncensored Internet to train your LLMs?
Because they're concerned about AI use the same way Google is concerned about your private data.
jampekka · 2h ago
> We are committed to this path of democratic AI.
So were do I vote? How do I became a candidate to be a representative or a delegate of voters? I assume every single human is eligible for both, as OpenAI serves the humanity?
softwaredoug · 2h ago
Democratic AI but we don’t want it regulated by any democratic process
rchaud · 2h ago
Democratic People's Republic of AI
jampekka · 2h ago
I wonder if democracy is some kind of corporate speech homonym of some totally different concept I'm familiar with. Perhaps it's even an interesting linguistic case where a word is a homonym of its antonym?
Edit: also apparently known as contronym.
JumpCrisscross · 2h ago
> wonder if democracy is some kind of corporate speech
It generally means broadening access to something. Finance loves democratising access to stupid things, for example.
> word is a homonym of its antonym?
Inflammable in common use.
m3kw9 · 2h ago
Path of, so it's getting there
jampekka · 2h ago
Via a temporary vanguard board composed of the most conscious and disciplined profit maximizers.
insane_dreamer · 1h ago
Lenin and the Bolsheviks were also committed to the path of fully democratic government. As soon as the people are ready. In the interim we'll make all the decisions.
moffkalast · 1h ago
They are committed, they didn't say they pushed yet. Or will ever.
theoryofx · 4h ago
"We made the decision for the nonprofit to retain control of OpenAI after hearing from..." [CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN CALIFORNIA AND DELAWARE]
This indicates that they didn't actually want the nonprofit to retain control and they're only doing it because they were forced to by threats of legal action.
HaZeust · 3h ago
When I read that, I was actually fairly surprised about how brazen they were about who they called on for this action. They simply just said it.
No comments yet
SCAQTony · 1h ago
Does anyone truly believe Musk had benevolent intentions? But before we even evaluate the substance of that claim, we must ask whether he has standing to make it. In his court filing, Musk uses the word "nonprofit" 111 times, yet fails to explain how reverting OpenAI to a nonprofit structure would save humanity, elevate the public interest, or mitigate AI’s risks. The legal brief offers no humanitarian roadmap, no governance proposal, and no evidence that Musk has the authority to dictate the trajectory of an organization he holds no equity in. It reads like a bait and switch — full of virtue-signaling, devoid of actionable virtue. And he never had a contract or an agreement for with OpenAI to keep it a non-profit.
Musk claimed Fraud, but never asked for his money back in the brief. Could it be his intentions were to limit OpenAI to donations thereby sucking the oxygen out of the venture capital space to fund Xai's Grok?
Musk claimed he donated $100mil, later in a CNBC interview, he said $50-mil. TechCrunch suggests it was way less.
Speakingof humanitarian, how about this 600lbs Oxymoron in the room: A Boston University mathematician has now tracked an estimated 10,000 deaths linked to the Musk's destruction of USAID programs, many of which provided basic health services to vulnerable populations. He may have a death count on his reume in the coming year.
Non profits has regulation than publicly traded companies. Each quarterly filings is like a colonoscopy with Sorbonne Oxley rules etc. Non profits just file a tax statement. Did you know the Chirch of Scientology is a non-profit.
timewizard · 1h ago
Replace Musk with "any billionaire."
He's a symptom of a problem. He's not actually the problem.
2) You mess up checks-and-balances at the beginning.
OpenAI did both.
Personally, I think at some point, the AGs ought to take over and push it back into a non-profit format. OAI undermines the concept of a non-profit.
purpleidea · 4h ago
There's really nothing "open" about this company. If they want to be, then:
(1) be transparent about exactly which data was collected for the model
(2) release all the source code
If you want to benefit humanity, then put it under a strong copyleft license with no CLA. Simple.
smeeth · 4h ago
They would do this if their mission was what you wish it was. But it isn't, so they won't.
BeetleB · 3h ago
Arguments by semantics are always tiresome.
sjtgraham · 4h ago
This restructuring is essentially a sophisticated maneuver toward wealth and power maximization shrouded in altruistic language.
No comments yet
_false · 4h ago
Here's a critical summary:
Key Structure Changes:
- Abandoning the "capped profit" model (which limited investor returns) in favor of traditional equity structure
- Converting for-profit LLC to Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)
- Nonprofit remains in control but also becomes a major shareholder
Reading Between the Lines:
1. Power Play: The "nonprofit control" messaging appears to be damage control following previous governance crises. Heavy emphasis on regulator involvement (CA/DE AGs) suggests this was likely not entirely voluntary.
2. Capital Structure Reality: They need "hundreds of billions to trillions" for compute. The capped-profit structure was clearly limiting their ability to raise capital at scale. This move enables unlimited upside for investors while maintaining the PR benefit of nonprofit oversight.
3. Governance Complexity: The "nonprofit controls PBC but is also major shareholder" structure creates interesting conflicts. Who controls the nonprofit? Who appoints its board? These details are conspicuously absent.
4. Competition Positioning: Multiple references to "democratic AI" vs "authoritarian AI" and "many great AGI companies" signal they're positioning against perceived centralized control (likely aimed at competitors).
Red Flags:
- Vague details about actual control mechanisms
- No specifics on nonprofit board composition or appointment process
- Heavy reliance on buzzwords ("democratic AI") without concrete governance details
- Unclear what specific powers the nonprofit retains besides shareholding
This reads like a classic Silicon Valley power consolidation dressed up in altruistic language - enabling massive capital raising while maintaining insider control through a nonprofit structure whose own governance remains opaque.
JumpCrisscross · 1h ago
Was this AI generated?
d--b · 4h ago
Mmh am I the only one who has been offered to participate in a “comparison between 2 chatgpt versions”?
The newer version included sponsored products in its response. I thought that was quite effed up.
No comments yet
CooCooCaCha · 4h ago
I'm getting really tired of hearing about OpenAI "evolving".
dang · 4h ago
Ok, but can you please not post unsubstantive comments to HN? We're looking for curious conversation here, and this is not that.
OpenAI is busy rearranging the chairs while their competitors surpass them.
ramesh31 · 3h ago
Yup. Haven't used an OpenAI model for anything in 6+ months now, except to check the latest one and confirm that it is still hilariously behind Google/Anthropic.
> Instead of our current complex capped-profit structure—which made sense when it looked like there might be one dominant AGI effort but doesn’t in a world of many great AGI companies—we are moving to a normal capital structure where everyone has stock. This is not a sale, but a change of structure to something simpler.
No comments yet
Not only is there infinite incentive to compete, but theres decreasing costs to. The only world in which AGI is winner take all is a world in which it is extremely controlled to the point at which the public cant query it.
It does have some weasel words around value-aligned and safety-conscious which they can always argue but this could get interesting because they've basically agreed not to compete. A fairly insane thing to do in retrospect.
The first-mover advantages of an AGI that can improve itself are theoretically unsurmountable.
But OpenAI doesn't have a path to AGI any more than anyone else. (It's increasingly clear LLMs alone don't make the cut.) And the market for LLMs, non-general AI, is very much not winner takes all. In this announcement, OpenAI is basically acknowledging that it's not getting to self-improving AGI.
This has some baked assumptions about cycle time and improvement per cycle and whether there's a ceiling.
To be precise, it assumes a low variability in cycle time and improvement per cycle. If everyone is subjected to the same limits, the first-mover advantage remains insurmountable. I’d also argue that whether there is a ceiling matters less than how high it is. If the first AGI won’t hit a ceiling for decades, it will have decades of fratricidal supremacy.
I wonder, do you have a hypothesis as to what would be a measurement that would differentiate AGI vs Not-AGI?
EDIT: There can be levels of AGI. Google DeepMind have proposed a framework that would classify ChatGPT as "Emerging AGI".
https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462
I don't know if it is optimism or delusions of grandeur that drives people to make claims like AGI will be here in the next decade. No, we are not getting that.
And what do you think would happen to us humans if such AGI is achieved? People's ability to put food on the table is dependent on their labor exchanged for money. I can guarantee for a fact, that work will still be there but will it be equitable? Available to everyone? Absolutely not. Even UBI isn't going to cut it because even with UBI people still want to work as experiments have shown. But with that, there won't be a majority of work especially paper pushing mid level bs like managers on top of managers etc.
If we actually get AGI, you know what would be the smartest thing for such an advanced thing to do? It would probably kill itself because it would come to the conclusion that living is a sin and a futile effort. If you are that smart, nothing motivates you anymore. You will be just a depressed mass for all your life.
That's just how I feel.
The two concepts have historically been inexorably linked in sci-fi, which will likely make the first AGI harder to recognize as AGI if it lacks consciousness, but I'd argue that simple "unconscious AGI" would be the superior technology for current and foreseeable needs. Unconscious AGI can be employed purely as a tool for massive collective human wealth generation; conscious AGI couldn't be used that way without opening a massive ethical can of worms, and on top of that its existence would represent an inherent existential threat.
Conscious AGI could one day be worthwhile as something we give birth to for its own sake, as a spiritual child of humanity that we send off to colonize distant or environmentally hostile planets in our stead, but isn't something I think we'd be prepared to deal with properly in a pre-post-scarcity society.
It isn't inconceivable that current generative AI capabilities might eventually evolve to such a level that they meet a practical bar to be considered unconscious AGI, even if they aren't there yet. For all the flak this tech catches, it's easy to forget that capabilities which we currently consider mundane were science fiction only 2.5 years ago (as far as most of the population was concerned). Maybe SOTA LLMs fit some reasonable definition of "emerging AGI", or maybe they don't, but we've already shifted the goalposts in one direction given how quickly the Turing test became obsolete.
Personally, I think current genAI is probably a fair distance further from meeting a useful definition of AGI than those with a vested interest in it would admit, but also much closer than those with pessimistic views of the consequences of true AGI tech want to believe.
There can be levels of AGI. Google DeepMind have proposed a framework that would classify ChatGPT as "Emerging AGI".
ChatGPT can solve problems that it was not explicitly trained to solve, across a vast number of problem domains.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.02462
The paper is summarized here https://venturebeat.com/ai/here-is-how-far-we-are-to-achievi...
Edit: because if "AGI" doesn't mean that... then what means that and only that!?
"Agentic AI" means that.
Well, to some people, anyway. And even then, people are already arguing about what counts as agency.
That's the trouble with new tech, we have to invent words for new stuff that was previously fiction.
I wonder, did people argue if "horseless carriages" were really carriages? And "aeroplane" how many argued that "plane" didn't suit either the Latin or Greek etymology for various reasons?
We never did rename "atoms" after we split them…
And then there's plain drift: Traditional UK Christmas food is the "mince pie", named for the filling, mincemeat. They're usually vegetarian and sometimes even vegan.
Think about it - the original definition of AGI was basically a machine that can do absolutely anything at a human level of intelligence or better.
That kind of technology wouldn't just appear instantly in a step change. There would be incremental progress. How do you describe the intermediate stages?
What about a machine that can do anything better than the 50th percentile of humans? That would be classified as "Competent AGI", but not "Expert AGI" or ASI.
> fancy search engine/auto completer
That's an extreme oversimplification. By the same reasoning, so is a person. They are just auto completing words when they speak. No that's not how deep learning systems work. It's not auto complete.
It's really not. The Space Shuttle isn't an emerging interstellar spacecraft, it's just a spacecraft. Throwing emerging in front of a qualifier to dilute it is just bullshit.
> By the same reasoning, so is a person. They are just auto completing words when they speak.
We have no evidence of this. There is a common trope across cultures and history of characterising human intelligence in terms of the era's cutting-edge technology. We did it with steam engines [1]. We did it with computers [2]. We're now doing it with large language models.
[1] http://metaphors.iath.virginia.edu/metaphors/24583
[2] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/a...
The General Intelligence part of AGI refers to its ability to solve problems that it was not explicitly trained to solve, across many problem domains. We already have examples of the current systems doing exactly that - zero shot and few shot capabilities.
> We have no evidence of this.
That's my point. Humans are not "autocompleting words" when they speak.
No, it's bringing something out of scope into the definition. Gluten-free means free of gluten. Gluten-free bagel verus sliced bread is a refinement--both started out under the definition. Glutinous bread, on the other hand, is not gluten free. As a result, "almost gluten free" is bullshit.
> That's my point. Humans are not "autocompleting words" when they speak
Humans are not. LLMs are. It turns out that's incredibly powerful! But it's also limiting in a way that's fundamentally important to the definition of AGI.
LLMs bring us closer to AGI in the way the inventions of writing, computers and the internet probably have. Calling LLMs "emerging AGI" pretends we are on a path to AGI in a way we have zero evidence for.
Bad analogy. That's a binary classification. AGI systems can have degrees of performance and capability.
> Humans are not. LLMs are.
My point is that if you oversimplify LLMs to "word autocompletion" then you can make the same argument for humans. It's such an oversimplification of the transformer / deep learning architecture that it becomes meaningless.
The "g" in AGI requires the AI be able to perform "the full spectrum of cognitively demanding tasks with proficiency comparable to, or surpassing, that of humans" [1]. Full and not full are binary.
> if you oversimplify LLMs to "word autocompletion" then you can make the same argument for humans
No, you can't, unless you're pre-supposing that LLMs work like human minds. Calling LLMs "emerging AGI" pre-supposes that LLMs are the path to AGI. We simply have no evidence for that, no matter how much OpenAI and Google would like to pretend it's true.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc...
> No, you can't, unless you're pre-supposing that LLMs work like human minds.
You are missing the point. If you reduce LLMs to "word autocompletion" then you completely ignore the the attention mechanism and conceptual internal representations. These systems have deep learning models with hundreds of layers and trillions of weights. If you completely ignore all of that, then by the same reasoning (completely ignoring the complexity of the human brain) we can just say that people are auto-completing words when they speak.
Sure, Google wants to redefine AGI so it looks like things that aren’t AGI can be branded as such. That definition is, correctly in my opinion, being called out as bullshit.
> obviously there will be stages in between
We don’t know what the stages are. Folks in the 80s were similarly selling their expert systems as a stage to AGI. “Emerging AGI” is a bullshit term.
> If you reduce LLMs to "word autocompletion" then you completely ignore the the attention mechanism and conceptual internal representations. These systems have deep learning models with hundreds of layers and trillions of weights
Fair enough, granted.
The turing test was succesfull. Pre chatGPT, I would not have believed, that will happen so soon.
LLMs ain't AGI, sure. But they might be an essential part and the missing parts maybe already found, just not put together.
And work there will be always plenty. Distributing ressources might require new ways, though.
The very people whose theories about language are now being experimentally verified by LLMs, like Chomsky, have also been discrediting the Turing test as pseudoscientific nonsense since early 1990s.
It's one of those things like the Kardashev scale, or Level 5 autonomous driving, that's extremely easy to define and sounds very cool and scientific, but actually turns out to have no practical impact on anything whatsoever.
Bots, that are now allmost indistinguishable from humans, won't have a practical impact? I am sceptical. And not just because of scammers.
Name me a human that also doesn't need direction or guidance to do a task, at least one they haven't done before
Literally everything that's been invented.
Here is a mainstream opinion about why AGI is already here. Written by one of the authors the most widely read AI textbook: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Mod...
Can ChatGPT drive a car? No, we have specialized models for driving vs generating text vs image vs video etc etc. Maybe ChatGPT could pass a high school chemistry test but it certainly couldn't complete the lab exercises. What we've built is a really cool "Algorithm for indexing generalized data", so you can train that Driving model very similarly to how you train the Text model without needing to understand the underlying data that well.
The author asserts that because ChatGPT can generate text about so many topics that it's general, but it's really only doing 1 thing and that's not very general.
I think we need to separate the thinking part of intelligence from tool usage. Not everyone can use every tool at a high level of expertise.
No comments yet
Likewise for "intelligent", and even "artificial".
So no, ChatGPT can't drive a car*. But it knows more about car repairs, defensive driving, global road features (geoguesser), road signs in every language, and how to design safe roads, than I'm ever likely to.
* It can also run python scripts with machine vision stuff, but sadly that's still not sufficient to drive a car… well, to drive one safety, anyway.
This doesn’t imply that it’s ideal for driving cars, but to say that it’s not capable of driving general intelligence is incorrect in my view.
How about we have ChatGPT start with a simple task like reliably generating JSON schema when asked to.
Hint: it will fail.
Last time I checked, in an Anthropic paper, they asked the model to count something. They examined the logits and a graph showing how it arrived at the answer. Then they asked the model to explain its reasoning, and it gave a completely different explanation, because that was the most statistically probable response to the question. Does that seem like AGI to you?
OpenAI is capturing most of the value in the space (generic LLM models), even though they have competitors who are beating them on price or capabilities.
I think OpenAI may be able to maintain this position at least for the medium term because of their name recognition/prominence and they are still a fast mover.
I also think the US is going to ban all non-US LLM providers from the US market soon for "security reasons."
Their relationship with MS breaking down is a bad omen. I'm already seeing non-tech users who use "Copilot" because their spouse uses it at work. Barely knowing it's rebadged GPT. You think they'll switch when MS replaces the backend with e.g. Anthropic? No chance.
MS, Google and Apple and Meta have gigantic levers to pull and get the whole world to abandon OpenAI. They've barely been pulling them, but it's a matter of time. People didn't use Siri and Bixby because they were crap. Once everyone's Android has a Gemini button that's just as good as GPT (which it already is (it's better) for anything besides image generation), people are going to start pressing them. And good luck to OpenAI fighting that.
What do you consider an "LLM provider"? Is it a website where you interact with a language model by uploading text or images? That definition might become too broad too quickly. Hard to ban.
https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/03/us_senator_download_c...
One of them will eventually pass given that OpenAI is also pushing for protection:
https://futurism.com/openai-ban-chinese-ai-deepseek
everyone will roll over if all large public companies roll over (and they will)
Well Trump is interested in tariffing movies and South Korea took DeepSeek off mobile app stores, so they certainly may try. But for high-end tasks, DeepSeek R1 671B is available for download, so any company with a VPN to download it and the necessary GPUs or cloud credits can run it. And for consumers, DeepSeek V3's distilled models are available for download, so anyone with a (~4 year old or newer) Mac or gaming PC can run them.
If the only thing keeping these companies valuations so high is banning the competition, that's not a good sign for their long-term value. If you have to ban the competition, you can't be feeling good about what you're making.
For what it's worth, I think GPT o3 and o1, Gemini 2.5 Pro and Claude 3.7 Sonnet are good enough to compete. DeepSeek R1 is often the best option (due to cost) for tasks that it can handle, but there are times where one of the other models can achieve a task that it can't.
But if the US is looking to ban Chinese models, then that could suggest that maybe these models aren't good enough to raise the funding required for newer, significantly better (and more expensive) models. That, or they just want to stop as much money as possible from going to China. Banning the competition actually makes the problem worse though, as now these domestic companies have fewer competitors. But I somewhat doubt there's any coherent strategy as to what they ban, tariff, etc.
Switching from ChatGPT to the many competitors is neither expensive nor painful.
Yeah; and:
Seems like nary a daylight between DeepSeek R1, Sonnet 3.5, Gemini 2.5, & Grok3 really put things in perspective for them!and that makes complete sense if you don't have a lay person's understanding of the tech. Language models were never going to bring about "AGI."
This is another nail in the coffin
Which sounds pretty in-line with the SV culture of putting profit above all else.
If I were a person like several of the people working on AI right now (or really, just heading up tech companies), I could be the kind to look at a possible world-ending event happening in the next - eh, year, let's say - and just want to have a party at the end of the world.
Five years to ten years? Harder to predict.
The window there would at _least_ include the next 5 years, though obviously not ten.
It will likely require research breakthroughs, significant hardware advancement, and anything from a few years to a few decades. But it's coming.
ChatGPT was released 2.5 years ago, and look at all the crazy progress that has been made in that time. That doesn't mean that the progress has to continue, we'll probably see a stall.
But AIs that are on a level with humans for many common tasks is not that far off.
There's a lot of literature on this, and if you've been in the industry for any amount of time since the 1950s, you have seen at least one AI winter.
probably true but this statement would be true if when is 2308 which would defeat the purpose of the statement. when first cars started rolling around some mates around the campfire we saying “not if but when” we’ll have flying cars everywhere and 100 years later (with amazing progress in car manufacturing) we are nowhere near… I think saying “when, not if” is one of those statements that while probably indisputable in theory is easily disputable in practice. give me “when” here and I’ll put up $1,000 to a charity of your choice if you are right and agree to do the same thing if wrong
It has? I mean, that's what some people claim, especially leadership, but I haven't really seen the higher touted efficiency gains in the trenches. I think its more a convenient excuse to trim some fat - companies are still trying to get away from the excess of COVID.
It has taken tens to hundred of billions of dollars without equivalent economic justification(yet) before to reach here. I am not saying economic justification doesn't exist or wont come in the future, just that the upfront investment and risk is already in order of magnitude of what the largest tech companies can expend.
If the the next generation requires hundreds of billions or trillions [2] upfront and a very long time to make returns, no one company (or even country) could allocate that kind of resources.
Many cases of such economically limited innovations[1], nuclear fusion is the classic always 20 years away example. Another close one is anything space related, we cannot replicate in next 5 years what we already achieved from 50 years ago of say landing on the moon and so on.
From a just a economic perspective it is a definitely a "If", without even going into the technology challenges.
[1]Innovations in cost of key components can reshape economics equation, it does happen (as with spaceX) but it also not guaranteed like in fusion.
[2] The next gen may not be close enough to AGI. AGI could require 2-3 more generations ( and equivalent orders of magnitude of resources), which is something the world is unlikely to expend resources on even if it had them.
We have zero evidence for this. (Folks said the same shit in the 80s.)
Most HN people are probably too young to remember that the nanotech post-scarcity singularity was right around the corner - just some research and engineering way - which was the widespread opinion in 1986 (yes, 1986). It was _just as dramatic_ as today's AGI.
That took 4-5 years to fall apart, and maybe a bit longer for the broader "nanotech is going to change everything" to fade. Did nanotech disappear? No, but the notion of general purpose universal constructors absolutely is dead. Will we have them someday? Maybe, if humanity survives a hundred more years or more, but it's not happening any time soon.
There are a ton of similarities between nanotech-nanotech singularity and the moderns LLM-AGI situation. People point(ed) to "all the stuff happening" surely the singularity is on the horizon! Similarly, there was the apocalytpic scenario that got a ton of attention and people latching onto "nanotech safety" - instead of runaway AI or paperclip engines, it was Grey Goo (also coined in 1986).
The dynamics of the situation, the prognostications, and aggressive (delusional) timelines, etc. are all almost identical in a 1:1 way with the nanotech era.
I think we will have both AGI and general purpose universal constructors, but they are both no less than 50 years away, and probably more.
So many of the themes are identical that I'm wondering if it's a recurring kind of mass hysteria. Before nanotech, we were on the verge of genetic engineering (not _quite_ the same level of hype, but close, and pretty much the same failure to deliver on the hype as nanotech) and before that the crazy atomic age of nuclear everything.
Yes, yes, I know that this time is different and that AI is different and it won't be another round of "oops, this turned out to be very hard to make progress on and we're going to be in a very slow, multi-decade slow-improvement regime, but that has been the outcome of every example of this that I can think of.
I thought this was a "we know we can't" thing rather than a "not with current technology" thing?
The idea of scaling up LLMs and hoping is .. pretty silly.
It seems like nanotech is all around us now, but the term "nanotech" has been redefined to mean something different (larger scale, less amazing) from Drexler's molecular assemblers.
The problem is that the distance between a nano thin film or an interesting but ultimately rigid nano scale transistor and a programmable nano level sized robot is enormous, despite similar sizes. Same like the distance between an autocomplete heavily relying on the preexisting external validators (compilers, linters, static code analyzers etc.) and a real AI capable of thinking is equally enormous.
LLMs destroying any sort of capacity (and incentive) for the population to think pushes this further and further out each day
I don’t agree that this will affect ML progress much, since the general population isn’t contributing to core ML research.
If the entrenched giants (Google, Microsoft and Apple) catch up - and Google 100% has, if not surpassed - they have a thousand levers to pull and OpenAI is done for. Microsoft has realized this, hence why they're breaking up with them - Google and Anthropic have shown they don't need OpenAI. Galaxy phones will get a Gemini button, Chrome will get it built into the browser. MS can either develop their own thing , use opensource models, or just ask every frontier model provider (and there's already 3-4 as we speak) how cheaply they're willing to deliver. Then chuck it right in the OS and Office first-class. Which half the white collar world spends their entire day staring at. Apple devices too will get an AI button (or gesture, given it's Apple) and just like MS they'll do it inhouse or have the providers bid against each other.
The only way OpenAI David was ever going to beat the Goliaths GMA in the long run was if it were near-impossible to catch up to them, á la TSMC/ASML. But they did catch up.
The wisest move in the chatbot business might be to wait and see if anyone discovers anything profitable before spending more effort and wasting more money on chat R&D, which includes most agentic stuff. Reliable assistants or something along those lines might be the next big breakthrough (if you ask certain futurologists), but the technology we have seems unsuitable for any provable reliability.
ML can be applied in a thousand ways other than LLMs, and many will positively impact our lives and create their own markets. But OpenAI is not in that business. I think the writing is on the wall, and Sama's vocal fry, "AGI is close," and humanity verification crypto coins are smoke and mirrors.
Personally, deep research and o3 have been transformative, taking LLMs from something I have never used to something that I am using daily.
Even if the progress ends up plateauing (which I do not believe will happen in the near term), behaviors are changing; OpenAI is capturing users, and taking them from companies like Google. Google may be able to fight back and win - Gemini 2.5 Pro is great - but any company sitting this out risks being unable to capture users back from Open AI at a later date.
Why? I paid for Claude for a while, but with Deepseek, Gemini and the free hits on Mistral, ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity I'm not sure why I would now. This is anecdotal of course, but I'm very rarely unique in my behaviour. I think the best the subscription companies can hope for is that their subscribers don't realize that Deepseek and Gemini can basically do all you need for free.
I cannot stress this enough: if you know what Deepseek, Claude, Mistral, and Perplexity are, you are not a typical consumer.
Arguably, if you have used a single one of those brands you are not a typical consumer.
The vast majority of people have used ChatGPT and nothing else, except maybe clicking on Gemini or Meta AI by accident.
They might not “know” the brand as well as ChatGPT, but the average consumer has definitely been exposed to those at the very least.
DeepSeek also made a lot of noise, to the point that, anecdotally, I’ve seen a lot of people outside of tech using it.
> taken it from a toy to genuinely insanely useful.
Really?
Most people in society connect AI directly to ChatGPT and hence OpenAI. And there has been a lot of progress in image generation, video generation, ...
So I think your timeline and views are slightly off.
GPT-2 was released in 2019, GPT-3 in 2020. I'd say 2020 is significant because that's when people seriously considered the Turing test passed reliably for the first time. But for the sake of this argument, it hardly matters what date years back we choose. There's been enough time since then to see the plateau.
> Most people in society connect AI directly to ChatGPT and hence OpenAI.
I'd double-check that assumption. Many people I've spoken to take a moment to remember that "AI" stands for artificial intelligence. Outside of tongue-in-cheek jokes, OpenAI has about 50% market share in LLMs, but you can't forget that Samsung makes AI washing machines, let alone all the purely fraudulent uses of the "AI" label.
> And there has been a lot of progress in image generation, video generation, ...
These are entirely different architectures from LLM/chat though. But you're right that OpenAI does that, too. When I said that they don't stray much from chat, I was thinking more about AlexNet and the broad applications of ML in general. But you're right, OpenAI also did/does diffusion, GANs, transformer vision.
This doesn't change my views much on chat being "not seeing the forest for the trees" though. In the big picture, I think there aren't many hockey sticks/exponentials left in LLMs to discover. That is not true about other AI/ML.
We do appear to be hitting a cap on the current generation of auto-regressive LLMs, but this isn't a surprise to anyone on the frontier. The leaked conversations between Ilya, Sam and Elon from the early OpenAI days acknowledge they didn't have a clue as to architecture, only that scale was the key to making experiments even possible. No one expected this generation of LLMs to make it nearly this far. There's a general feeling of "quiet before the storm" in the industry, in anticipation of an architecture/training breakthrough, with a focus on more agentic, RL-centric training methods. But it's going to take a while for anyone to prove out an architecture sufficiently, train it at scale to be competitive with SOTA LLMs and perform enough post training, validation and red-teamint to be comfortable releasing to the public.
Current LLMs are years and hundreds of millions of dollars of training in. That's a very high bar for a new architecture, even if it significantly improves on LLMs.
No comments yet
There is little to no money to be made in GAI, it will never turn into AGI, and people like Altman know this, so now they’re looking for a greater fool before it is too late.
Why does the forum of an incubator that now has a portfolio that is like 80% AI so routinely bearish on AI? Is it a fear of irrelevance?
I don't think there is serious argument that LLMs won't generate tremendous value. The question is who will capture it. PCs generated massive value. But other than a handful of manufacturers and designers (namely, Apple, HP, Lenovo, Dell and ASUS), most PC builders went bankrupt. And out of the value generated by PCs in the world, the vast majority was captured by other businesses and consumers.
When the Internet was developed they didn't imagine the world wide Web.
When cars started to get popular people still thought there would be those who are going to stick with horses.
I think you're right on the AI we're just on the cusp of it and it'll be a hundred times bigger than we can imagine.
Back when oil was discovered and started to be used it was about equal to 500 laborers now automated. One AI computer with some video cards are now worth x number of knowledge workers. That never stop working as long as the electricity keeps flowing.
This makes me want to invest in malpractice lawyers, not OpenAI
AI isn't going to be the world changing, AGI, that was sold to the public. Instead, it will simply be another B2B SaaS product. Useful, for sure. Even profitable for startups.
But "take over the world" good? Unlikely.
The world is changing and that is scary.
Oh we know: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11006786/
The article could just as easily be about “Delayed diagnosis of a transient ischemic attack caused by talking to some rando on Reddit” and it would be just as (non) newsworthy.
OpenAI has claimed this. But Altman is a pathological liar. There are lots of ways of disguising operating costs as capital costs or R&D.
The news that they did that would make them lose most of their revenue pretty fast.
In this niche you can be irrellevant in months when your models drop behind.
OpenAI models are already of the most expensive, they don’t have a lot of levers to pull.
It’s ok to not buy into the vision or think it’s impossible. But it’s a shallow dismissal to make the unnuanced comparison, especially when we’re talking about a brand new technology - who knows what the cost optimization levers are. Who knows what the market will bear after a few more revs.
When the iPhone first came out, it was too expensive, didn’t do enough, and many people thought it was a waste of apples time when they should be making music players.
This comparison is always used when people are trying to hype something. For every "iPhone" there are thousands of failures
> But it’s a shallow dismissal to make the unnuanced comparison, especially when we’re talking about a brand new technology - who knows what the cost optimization levers are. Who knows what the market will bear after a few more revs.
You're acting as-if OpenAI is still the only player in this space. OpenAI has plenty of competitors who can deliver similar models for cheaper. Gemini 2.5 is an excellent and affordable model and Google has a substantially better capacity to scale because of a multi-year investment in its TPUs.
Whatever first mover advantage OpenAI had has been quickly eliminated, they've lost a lot of their talent, and the chief hypothesis they used to attract the capital they've raised so far is utterly wrong. VCs would be mad to be continuing to pump money into OpenAI just to extend their runway -- at 5 Bln losses per year they need to actually consider cost, especially when their frontier releases are only marginal improvements over competitors.
... this is a bubble despite the promise of the technology and anyone paying attention can see it. For all of the dumb money employed in this space to make it out alive, we'll have to at least see a fairly strong form of AGI developed, and by that point the tech will be threatening the general economic stability of the US consumer.
I feel like people overuse this criticism. That's not the only way that companies with a lot of revenue lose money. And this isn't at all what OpenAI is doing, at least from their customers' perspective. It's not like customers are subscribing to ChatGPT simply because it gives them something they were going to buy anyway for cheaper.
1: https://www.techpolicy.press/transcript-senate-judiciary-sub...
OpenAI has been on a winning streak that makes ChatGPT the default chatbot for most of the planet.
Everybody else like you describe is trying to add some AI crap behind a button on a congested UI.
B2B market will stay open but OpenAI has certainly not peaked yet.
What network effect does OpenAI have? Far as I can tell, moving from OpenAI to Gemini or something else is easy. It’s not sticky at all. There’s no “my friends are primarily using OpenAI so I am too” or anything like that.
So again, I ask, what makes it sticky?
They have the brand recognition and consumer goodwill no other brand in AI has, incredibly so with school students, who will soon go into the professional world and bring that goodwill with them.
I think better models are enough to dethrone OpenAI in API, B2C and internal enterprise use cases, but OpenAI has consumer mindshare, and they're going to be the king of chatbots forever. Unless somebody else figures out something which is better by orders of magnitude and that Open AI can't copy quickly, it's going to stay that way.
Apple had the opportunity to do something really great here. With Siri's deep device integration on one hand and Apple's willingness to force 3rd-party devs to do the right thing for users on the other, they could have had a compelling product that nobody else could copy, but it seems like they're not willing to go that route, mostly for privacy, antitrust and internal competency reasons, in that order. Google is on the right track and might get something similar (although not as polished as typical Apple) done, but Android's mindshare among tech-savvy consumers isn't great enough for it to get traction.
...Until their employer forces them to use Microsoft Copilot, or Google Gemini, or whatever, because that's what they pay for and what integrates into their enterprise stack. And the new employee shrugs and accepts it.
...yes. Office is the market leader. Slack has between a fifth and a fourth of the market. Coca-Cola's products have like 70% market share in the American carbonated soft-drink market [1].
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/060415/how-much-glo...
So the interesting question is: How did that happen? Why wasn't Google search an easily swapped commodity? Or if it was, how did they win and defend their default status? Why didn't the existing juggernauts at the time (Microsoft) beat them at this game?
I have my own answers for these, and I'm sure all the smart people figuring out strategy at Open AI have thought about similar things.
It's not clear if Open AI will be able to overcome this commodification issue (personally, I think they won't), but I don't think it's impossible, and there is prior art for at least some of the pages in this playbook.
Google is doing well for the moment, but OpenAI just closed a $40 billion round. Neither will be able to rest for a while.
Maybe the big amount of money they've given to Apple which is their direct competitor in the mobile space. Also good amount of money given to Firefox, which is their direct competitor in the browser space, alongside side Safari from Apple.
Most people don't care about the search engine. The default is what they will used unless said default is bad.
So then apply that to Open AI. What are the distribution channels? Should they be paying Cursor to make them the default model? Or who else? Would that work? If not, why not? What's different?
My intuition is that this wouldn't work for them. I think if this "pay to be default" strategy works for someone, it will be one of their deeper pocketed rivals.
But I also don't think this was the only reason Google won search. In my memory, those deals to pay to be the default came fairly long after they had successfully built the brand image as the best search engine. That's how they had the cash to afford to pay for this.
A couple years ago, I thought it seemed likely that Open AI would win the market in that way, by being known as the clear best model. But that seems pretty unclear now! There are a few different models that are pretty similarly capable at this point.
Essentially, I think the reason Google was able to win search whereas the prospects look less obvious for Open AI is that they just have stronger competition!
To me, it just highlights the extent to which the big players at the time of Google's rise - Microsoft, Yahoo, ... Oracle maybe? - really dropped the ball on putting up strong competition. (Or conversely, Google was just further ahead of its time.)
At best they have a bit of cheap tribalism that might prevent some incurious people who don't care much about using the best tools noticing that they aren't.
Facebook wasn't some startup when Google+ entered the scene; they were already cash flow positive, and had roughly 30% ads market share.
OpenAI is still operating at a loss despite having 50+% of the chatbot "market". There is no easy path to victory for them here.
If you look at Gemini, I know people using it daily.
No comments yet
Consumer brand companies such as Coca Cola and Pepsi spend millions on brand awareness advertising just to be the “default” in everyone’s heads. When there’s not much consequence choosing one option over another, the one you’ve heard of is all that matters
My impression is that Claude is a lot more popular – and it’s the one I use myself, though as someone else said the vast majority of people, even in software engineering, don’t use AI often at all.
OpenAI has like 10 to 20% market share [1][2]. They're also an American company whose CEO got on stage with an increasingly-hated world leader. There is no universe in which they keep equal access to the world's largest economies.
[1] https://iot-analytics.com/leading-generative-ai-companies/
[2] https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/stats/openai-statistics....
This moat is non-existent when it comes to Open AI.
All dissidents went into Little Wadyia.
When the Dictator himself visited it, he started to fake his name by copying the signs and names he saw on the walls. Everyone knew what he was.
Internet social networks are like that.
Now, this moat thing. That's hilarious.
For example, I'd never suggest that e.g. MS could take on TikTok, despite all the levers they can pull, and being worth magnitudes more. No chance.
And nobody's saying OpenAI will go bankrupt, they'll certainly continue to be a huge player in this space. But their astronomical valuation was based on the initial impression that they were the only game in town, and it will come down now that that's no longer true. Hence why Altman wants to cash out ASAP.
The names don't even matter when everything is baked in.
Slack? Zoom? Teams?
I'm sure you'd get a somewhat uniform distribution.
Ask the same today, and I'd bet most will say Teams. Why Teams? Because it comes with office / windows, so that's what most people will use.
Same logic goes for the AI / language models...which one are people going to use? The ones that are provided as "batteries included" in whatever software or platform they use the most. And for the vast majority of regular people / workers, it is going to be something by microsoft / google / whatever.
The fact that people know Coca Cola doesnt mean they drink it.
That name recognition made Coca Cola into a very successful global corporation.
OpenAI trained GPT-4.1 and 4.5—both originally intended to be GPT-5 but they were considered disappointments, which is why they were named differently. Did they really believe that scaling the number of parameters would continue indefinitely without diminishing returns? Not only is there no moat, but there's also no reasonable path forward with this architecture for an actual breakthrough.
Market share of OpenAI is like 90%+.
Source? I've seen 10 to 20% [1][2].
[1] https://iot-analytics.com/leading-generative-ai-companies/
[2] https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/stats/openai-statistics....
I probably need to clarify what I'm talking about, so that peeps like @JumpCrisscross can get a better grasp of it.
I do not mean the total market share of the category of businesses that could be labeled as "AI companies", like Microsoft or NVIDIA, on your first link.
I will not talk about your second link because it does not seem to make sense within the context of this conversation (zero mentions or references to market share).
What I mean is:
* The main product that OpenAI sells is AI models (GPT-4o, etc...)
* OpenAI does not make hardware. OpenAI is not in the business of cloud infrastructure. OpenAI is not in the business of selling smartphones. A comparison between OpenAI and any of those companies would only make sense for someone with a very casual understanding of this topic. I can think of someone, perhaps, who only used ChatGPT a couple times and inferred it was made by Apple because it was there on its phone. This discussion calls for a deeper understanding of what OpenAI is.
* Other examples of companies that sell their own AI models, and thus compete directly with OpenAI in the same market that OpenAI operates by taking a look at their products and services, are Anthropic (w/ Claude), Google (w/ Gemini) and some others ones like Meta and Mistral with open models.
* All those companies/models, together, make up some market that you can put any name you want to it (The AI Model Market TM)
That is the market I'm talking about, and that is the one that I estimated to be 90%+ which was pretty much on point, as usual :).
1: https://gs.statcounter.com/ai-chatbot-market-share
2: https://www.ctol.digital/news/latest-llm-market-share-mar-20...
Your second source doesn’t say what it’s measuring and disclaims itself as from its “‘experimental era’ — a beautiful mess of enthusiasm, caffeine, and user-submitted chaos.” Your first link only measures chatbots.
ChatGPT is a chatbot. OpenAI sells AI models, including via ChatGPT. Among chatbots, sure, 84% per your source. (Not “90%+,” as you stated.) But OpenAI makes more than chatbots, and in the broader AI model market, its lead is far from 80+ percent.
TL; DR It is entirely wrong to say the “market share of OpenAI is like 90%+.”
[1] https://firstpagesage.com/reports/top-generative-ai-chatbots...
>10%-20%
Lmao, not even in Puchal wildest dreams.
One, you suggested OP had not “looked at the actual numbers.” That implies you have. If you were just guessing, that’s misleading.
Two, you misquoted (and perhaps misunderstand) a statistic that doesn’t match your claim. Even in your last comment, you defined the market as “companies that sell their own AI models” before doubling down on the chatbot-only figure.
> not even in Puchal wildest dreams
Okay, so what’s your source? Because so far you’ve put forward two sources, a retracted one and one that measures a single product that you went ahead and misquoted.
The only thing OpenAI has right now is the ChatGPT name, which has become THE word for modern LLMs among lay people.
Anecdotally, I've switched to Gemini as my daily driver for complex coding tasks. I prefer Claude's cleaner code, but it is less capable at difficult problems, and Anthropic's servers are unreliable.
That doesn't mean it has to always be this way, though. Back when I had more trust in the present government and USPS, I mused on how much of a game changer it might be for the USPS to provide free hosting and e-mail to citizens, repurposing the glut of unused real estate into smaller edge compute providers. Everyone gets a web server and 5GB of storage, with 1A Protections letting them say and host whatever they like from their little Post Office Box. Everyone has an e-mail address tied to their real identity, with encryption and security for digital mail just like the law provides for physical mail. I still think the answer is about enabling more people to engage with the internet on their selective terms (including the option of disengagement), rather than the present psychological manipulation everyone engages in to keep us glued to our screens, tethered to our phones, and constantly uploading new data to advertisers and surveillance firms alike.
But the nostalgic view that the internet used to be different is just that: rose-tinted memories of a past that never really existed. The first step to fixing this mess is acknowledging its harm.
The Internet has changed a lot over the decades, and it did used to be different, with the differences depending on how many years you go back.
It was sparked by going to a video conference "Hyperlocal Heroes: Building Community Knowledge in the Digital Age" hosted by New_ Public: https://newpublic.org/ "Reimagine social media: We are researchers, engineers, designers, and community leaders working together to explore creating digital public spaces where people can thrive and connect."
A not-insignificant amount of time in that one-hour teleconference was spent related to funding models for local social media and local reporting.
Afterwards, I got to thinking. The USA spent literally trillions of dollars on the (so-many-problematical-things-about-it-I-better-stop-now) Iraq war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War "According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 including interest."
Or, from a different direction, the USA spends about US$200 billion per year on mostly-billboard-free roads: https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative... "In 2021, state and local governments provided three-quarters of highway and road funding ($154 billion) and federal transfers accounted for $52 billion (25 percent)."
That's about US$700 per person per year on US roads.
So, clearly huge amounts of money are available in the USA if enough people think something is important. Imagine if a similar amount of money went to funding exactly what you outlined -- a free web presence for distributed social media -- with an infrastructure funded by tax dollars instead of advertisements. Isn't a healthy social media system essential to 21st century online democracy with public town squares?
And frankly such a distributed social media ecosystem in the USA might be possible for at most a tenth of what roads cost, like perhaps US$70 per person per year (or US$20 billion per year)?
Yes, there are all sorts of privacy and free speech issues to work through -- but it is not like we don't have those all now with the advertiser-funded social media systems we have. So, it is not clear to me that such a system would be immensely worse than what we have.
But what do I know? :-) Here was a previous big government suggestion be me from 2010 -- also mostly ignored (until now 15 years later the USA is in political crisis over supply chain dependency and still isn't doing anything very related to it yet): "Build 21000 flexible fabrication facilities across the USA" https://web.archive.org/web/20100708160738/http://pcast.idea... "Being able to make things is an important part of prosperity, but that capability (and related confidence) has been slipping away in the USA. The USA needs more large neighborhood shops with a lot of flexible machine tools. The US government should fund the construction of 21,000 flexible fabrication facilities across the USA at a cost of US$50 billion, places where any American can go to learn about and use CNC equipment like mills and lathes and a variety of other advanced tools and processes including biotech ones. That is one for every town and county in the USA. These shops might be seen as public extensions of local schools, essentially turning the shops of public schools into more like a public library of tools. This project is essential to US national security, to provide a technologically literate populace who has learned about post-scarcity technology in a hands-on way. The greatest challenge our society faces right now is post-scarcity technology (like robots, AI, nanotech, biotech, etc.) in the hands of people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity (whether in big organizations or in small groups). This project would help educate our entire society about the potential of these technologies to produce abundance for all."
It absolutely did. Steve Wozniak was real. Silicon Valley wasn't always a hive of liars and sycophants.
Condoning "honest liars" enables a whole other level of open and unrestricted criminality.
Google screamed against service revenue and advertising while building the world's largest advertising empire. Facebook screamed against misinformation and surveillance while enabling it on a global scale. Netflix screamed against the overpriced cable TV industry while turning streaming into modern overpriced cable television. Uber screamed against the entrenched taxi industry harming workers and passengers while creating an unregulated monster that harmed workers and passengers.
Altman and OpenAI are no different in this regard, loudly screaming against AI harming humanity while doing everything in their capacity to create AI tools that will knowingly harm humanity while enriching themselves.
If people trust the performance instead of the actions and their outcomes, then we can't convince them otherwise.
You mean, AGI will benefit all of humanity like War on Terror spread democracy?
I have not seen anything from sama or pmarca that I would classify as “authoritarian”.
>Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various and often mutually conflicting views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.
altman building a centralised authority of who will be classed as "human" is about as authoritarian as you could get
I doubt Worldcoin will actually manage to corner the market. But the point is, if it did, bad things would happen. Though, that’s probably true of most products.
Right now it's operated by a bunch of people who think that you can directly relate the amount of money a venture could make in the next 90 days to its net benefit for society. Government telling them how they can and cannot make that money, in their minds, is government telling them that they cannot bring maximum benefit to society.
Now, is this mindset myopic to everything that most people have in their lived experience? Is it ethically bankrupt and held by people who'd sell their own mothers for a penny if they otherwise couldn't get that penny? Would those people be banished to a place beyond human contact for the rest of their existence by functioning organs of an even somewhat-sane society?
I don't know. I'm just asking questions.
We can selectively ban uses without banning the technology wholesale; e.g., nuclear power generation is permitted, while nuclear weapons are strictly controlled.
I think the more relevant question is: Do you want to live in a Chinese dystopia, or a European one?
A non-AI dystopia is the least likely scenario.
No, just control. America exerts influence and control over Europe without having had to attack it in generations.
With US already having lost ideologigal war with russia and China, Europe is very much next
No - I'm suggesting that China will reap the benefits of AI much more than Europe will, and they will eclipse Europe economically. Their dominance will follow, and they'll be able to dictate terms to other countries (just as the US is doing, and has been doing).
> And I don't think China will become a utopia with unregulated AI.
Did you miss all the places I used the word "dystopia"?
> My impression after having visited it was not one of a utopia, and knowing how they use technology, I don't think AI will usher it in, because our visions of utopia are at odds. They may well enjoy what they have.
Comparing China when I was a kid, not that long ago, to what it is now: It is a dystopia, and that dystopia is responsible for much of the improvements they've made. Enjoying what they have doesn't mean it's not a dystopia. Most people don't understand how willing humans are to live in a dystopia if it improves their condition significantly (not worrying too much about food, shelter, etc).
If it's winner takes all for the first company/nation to have AGI (presuming we can control it), then slowing down progress of any kind with regulation is a risk.
I don't think there's a good enough analogy to be made, like your nuclear power/weapons example.
The hypothetical benefits of an aligned AGI outweigh those of any other technology by orders of magnitude.
We should not be racing ahead because China is, but investing energy in alignment research and international agreements.
We do know that. By literally looking at China.
> The hypothetical benefits of an aligned AGI outweigh those of any other technology by orders of magnitude.
AGI aligned with whom?
The primary difference is the observability - with satellites we had some confidence that other nations respected treaties, or that they had enough reaction time for mutual destruction, but with this AI development we lack all that.
https://time.com/6288245/openai-eu-lobbying-ai-act/
Mostly OpenAI and DeepMind and it stunk of 'pulling up the drawbridge behind them' and pivoting from actual harm to theoretical harm.
For a crowd supposedly entrenched in startups, it's amazing everyone here is so slow to recognise it's all funding pitches and contract bidding.
The "digital god" angle might explain why. For many, this has become a religious movement, a savior for an otherwise doomed economic system.
Omnipotent deities can never be held responsible for famine and natural disasters ("God has a plan for us all"). AI currently has the same get-out-of-jail free card where mistakes that no literate human would ever make are handwaved away as "hallucinations" that can be exorcised with a more sophisticated training model ("prayers").
No comments yet
> A lot of people around OpenAI in the early days thought AI should only be in the hands of a few trusted people who could “handle it”.
There is a lot to criticize about OpenAI and Sama, but this isn't it.
Whether they are a net positive or a net negative is arguable. If it's a net negative, then unleashing them to the masses was maybe the danger itself.
No more caps on profit, a simpler structure to sell to investors, and Altman can finally get that 7% equity stake he's been eyeing. Not a bad outcome for him given the constraints apparently imposed on them by "the Attorney General of Delaware and the Attorney General of California".
Let's see how this plays out. PBC effectively means nothing - just take a look at Xai and its purchase of Twitter. I would love to listen reasoning explaining why this ~33 billion USD move is benefiting public.
There was never a coherent explanation of its firing the CEO.
But they could have stuck with that decision if they believed in it.
Then things went unexpectedly well, people were valuing them at billions of dollars, and they suddenly decided they weren't open any more. Suddenly they were all about Altman's Interests Safety (AI Safety for short).
The board tried to fulfil its obligation to get the nonprofit to do the things in its charter, and they were unsuccessful.
But they found themselves alone in that it turns out the employees (who were employed by the for-profit company) and investors (MSFT in particular) didn't care about the mission and wanted to follow the money instead.
So the board had no choice but to capitulate and leave.
Right; so, "Worker Unions" work.
Not being snarky here, like what is the purported thesis behind them?
Some founders truly believe in structuring the company for the benefit of the public, but Altman has already shown he's not one of them.
This is true for literally any transaction. Actually, it's true for any rational action. If you're being tortured, and you decide it's not worth it to keep your secrets hidden any longer, you get more than you give up when you stop being tortured.
edit: to be clear, it's not a bad thing - we should want companies that create consumer surplus. But that's the default state of companies in a healthy market.
This is already impossibly hard. Approximately zero people commenting would be able to win this battle in Sam’s shoes. What would they need to do to begin to have a chance? Rather than make all the obvious comments “bad evil man wants to get rich”, think what it would take to achieve the mission. What would you need to do in his shoes, aside from just give up and close up shop? Probably this, at the very least.
Edit: I don’t know the guy and many near YC do. So I accept there may be a lens I don’t have. But I’d rather discuss the problem, not the person.
Being rich results in a kind of limitation of scope for ambition. To the sufferer, a person who has everything they could want, there is no other objective worth having. They become eccentric and they pursue more money.
We should have enrichment facilities for these people where they play incremental games and don’t ruin the world like the paperclip maximizers they are.
The dude announces new initiatives from the White House, regularly briefs Senators and senior DoD leaders, and is the top get for interviews around the world for AI topics.
There’s a lot more to be ambitious about than just money.
Maybe he wants to use the money in some nebulous future way, subjugating all people in a way that deals with his childhood trauma or whatever. That’s also something rich people do when they need a hobby aside from gathering more money. It’s not their main goal, except when they run into setbacks.
People are not complicated when they are money hoarders. They might have had hidden depths once, but they are thin furrows in the ground next to the giant piles of money that define them now.
--Gordon Gekko
Google/Anthropic are catching up, or already surpassed.
St. Altman plans to create a corporate god for us dumb schmucks, and he will be it's prophet.
Can some business person give us a summary on PBCs vs. alternative registrations?
(IANAL but run a PBC that uses this charter[1] and have written about it here[2] as part of our biennial reporting process.)
[1] https://github.com/OpenCoreVentures/ocv-public-benefit-compa...
[2] https://goauthentik.io/blog/2024-09-25-our-biennial-pbc-repo...
Theory: It allows the CEO to make decisions motivated not just by maximizing shareholder value but by some other social good. Of course, very few PBC CEOs choose to do that.
Look forward to re-living that shift from life-changing community resource to scammy and user-hostile
OpenAI admitting that they're not going to win?
> Sam’s Letter to Employees.
> OpenAI is not a normal company and never will be.
Where did I hear something like that before...
> Founders' IPO Letter
> Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one.
I wonder if it's intentional or perhaps some AI-assisted regurgitation prompted by "write me a successful letter to introduce a new corporate structure of a tech company".
And the investors wailed and gnashed their teeth but it’s true, that is what they agreed to, and they had no legal recourse. And OpenAI’s new CEO, and its nonprofit board, cut them a check for their capped return and said “bye” and went back to running OpenAI for the benefit of humanity. It turned out that a benign, carefully governed artificial superintelligence is really good for humanity, and OpenAI quickly solved all of humanity’s problems and ushered in an age of peace and abundance in which nobody wanted for anything or needed any Microsoft products. And capitalism came to an end.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-11-20/who-co...
* The nonprofit is staying the same, and will continue to control the for-profit entity OpenAI created to raise capital
* The for-profit is changing from a capped-profit LLC to a PBC like Anthropic and Xai
* These changes have been at least tacitly agreed to by the attorneys general of California and Delaware
* The non-profit won’t be the largest shareholder in the PBC (likely Microsoft) but will retain control (super voting shares?)
* OpenAI thinks there will be multiple labs that achieve AGI, although possibly on different timelines
It's just that this bait has a shelf life and it looks like it's going to expire soon.
What it really says is that if a user wants to control the interaction and get the useful responses, direct programmatic calls to the API that control the system prompt are going to be needed. And who knows how much longer even that will be allowed? As ChatGPT reports,
> "OpenAI has updated the ChatGPT UI (especially in GPT-4-turbo and ChatGPT Plus environments) to no longer expose the full system prompt or baseline prompt directly."
Is OpenAI making a profit?
More crucially, since OpenAI's founding and especially over the past 18 months, it's grown increasingly clear that AI leadership probably won't be dominated by one company, progress of "frontier models" is stalling while costs are spiraling, and 'Foom' AGI scenarios are highly unlikely anytime soon. It looks like this is going to be a much longer, slower slog than some hoped and others feared.
We know it's a sword. And there's war, yadda yadda. However, let's do the cultivating thing instead.
What other AI players we need to convince?
I've been feeling for some time now that we're sort of in the Vietnam War era of the tech industry.
I feel a strong urge to have more "ok, so where do we go from here?" and "what does a tech industry that promotes net good actually look like?" internal discourse in the community of practice, and some sort of ethical social contract for software engineering.
The open source movement has been fabulous and sometimes adjacent to or one aspect of these concerns, but really we need a movement for socially conscious and responsible software.
We need a tech counter-culture. We had one once, but now we need one.
But there are still plenty of mission-focused technology non-profits out there. Many of which have lasted decades. For example: Linux Foundation, Internet Archive, Mozilla, Wikimedia, Free Software Foundation, and Python Software Foundation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm also disappointed in the direction and actions of big tech, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss the non-profit foundations. They aren't worth a trillion dollars, however they are still doing good and important work.
Then why is it paywalled? Why are you making/have made people across the world sift through the worst material on offer by the wide uncensored Internet to train your LLMs? Why do you have a for-profit LLC operating under a non-profit, or for that matter, a "Public Benefit Corporation" that has to answer to shareholders at all?
Related to that:
> or the needs for hundreds of billions of dollars of compute to train models and serve users.
How does that serve humanity? Redirecting billions of dollars to fancy autocomplete who's power demands strain already struggling electrical grids and offset the gains of green energy worldwide?
> A lot of people around OpenAI in the early days thought AI should only be in the hands of a few trusted people who could “handle it”.
No, we thought your plagiarism machine was a disgusting abuse of the public square, and to be clear, this criticism would've been easily handled by simply requesting people opt-in to have their material used for AI training. But we all know why you didn't do that, don't we Sam.
> It will of course not be all used for good, but we trust humanity and think the good will outweigh the bad by orders of magnitude.
Well so far, we've got vulnerable, lonely people being scammed on Facebook, we've got companies charging subscriptions for people to sext their chatbots, we've got various states using it to target their opposition for military intervention, and the White House may have used it to draft the dumbest basis for a trade war in human history. Oh and fake therapists too.
When's the good kick in?
> We believe this is the best path forward—AGI should enable all of humanity^1 to benefit each other.
^1 who subscribe to our services
Because they're concerned about AI use the same way Google is concerned about your private data.
So were do I vote? How do I became a candidate to be a representative or a delegate of voters? I assume every single human is eligible for both, as OpenAI serves the humanity?
Edit: also apparently known as contronym.
It generally means broadening access to something. Finance loves democratising access to stupid things, for example.
> word is a homonym of its antonym?
Inflammable in common use.
This indicates that they didn't actually want the nonprofit to retain control and they're only doing it because they were forced to by threats of legal action.
No comments yet
Musk claimed Fraud, but never asked for his money back in the brief. Could it be his intentions were to limit OpenAI to donations thereby sucking the oxygen out of the venture capital space to fund Xai's Grok?
Musk claimed he donated $100mil, later in a CNBC interview, he said $50-mil. TechCrunch suggests it was way less.
Speakingof humanitarian, how about this 600lbs Oxymoron in the room: A Boston University mathematician has now tracked an estimated 10,000 deaths linked to the Musk's destruction of USAID programs, many of which provided basic health services to vulnerable populations. He may have a death count on his reume in the coming year.
Non profits has regulation than publicly traded companies. Each quarterly filings is like a colonoscopy with Sorbonne Oxley rules etc. Non profits just file a tax statement. Did you know the Chirch of Scientology is a non-profit.
He's a symptom of a problem. He's not actually the problem.
1) You're successful.
2) You mess up checks-and-balances at the beginning.
OpenAI did both.
Personally, I think at some point, the AGs ought to take over and push it back into a non-profit format. OAI undermines the concept of a non-profit.
(1) be transparent about exactly which data was collected for the model
(2) release all the source code
If you want to benefit humanity, then put it under a strong copyleft license with no CLA. Simple.
No comments yet
Key Structure Changes:
- Abandoning the "capped profit" model (which limited investor returns) in favor of traditional equity structure - Converting for-profit LLC to Public Benefit Corporation (PBC) - Nonprofit remains in control but also becomes a major shareholder
Reading Between the Lines:
1. Power Play: The "nonprofit control" messaging appears to be damage control following previous governance crises. Heavy emphasis on regulator involvement (CA/DE AGs) suggests this was likely not entirely voluntary.
2. Capital Structure Reality: They need "hundreds of billions to trillions" for compute. The capped-profit structure was clearly limiting their ability to raise capital at scale. This move enables unlimited upside for investors while maintaining the PR benefit of nonprofit oversight.
3. Governance Complexity: The "nonprofit controls PBC but is also major shareholder" structure creates interesting conflicts. Who controls the nonprofit? Who appoints its board? These details are conspicuously absent.
4. Competition Positioning: Multiple references to "democratic AI" vs "authoritarian AI" and "many great AGI companies" signal they're positioning against perceived centralized control (likely aimed at competitors).
Red Flags:
- Vague details about actual control mechanisms - No specifics on nonprofit board composition or appointment process - Heavy reliance on buzzwords ("democratic AI") without concrete governance details - Unclear what specific powers the nonprofit retains besides shareholding
This reads like a classic Silicon Valley power consolidation dressed up in altruistic language - enabling massive capital raising while maintaining insider control through a nonprofit structure whose own governance remains opaque.
The newer version included sponsored products in its response. I thought that was quite effed up.
No comments yet
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No comments yet