This is a weird fantasy among the literati that AI is a "scam", that we can "expose" them with lots of palace intrigue coverage and SBF or Elizabeth Holmes them away and then everything will be right in the world. Some of the best models are Chinese and Open-source and so-so good and Sam Altman is wholly irrelevant to them.
but the promotion of it certainly reeks of a pyramid scheme / scam
and the promises are pretty scammy in that they may be true at some point in time, but not today (one could say Tesla's FSD which some users paid for years ago, was/is a scam)
and there is one thing that is incontestable: AI, as wielded by large companies today, is a highly destructive force. you might be fine with that (one must tear down to rebuild approach), but many many other people are not.
I've noticed the disconnect between tech moguls and enthusiasts and the rest of the media in AI coverage.
AI can invoke existential dread for writers, educators, and artists just as much as for software developers and engineers, although on perhaps a more delayed schedule.
I think public sentiment among journalists will eventually catch up with the pros and cons of AI in a nuanced way, but it's a bit harder to appreciate how impactful it already is if you're not using it to write software every day.
The value in building creative tools (esp writing) for writers and educators will be a rounding error compared to all
the back office automation that is eating the lion shares of tokens. I just don’t think the media or mainstream thought is even aware of this because you don’t “see” it like that AI slop advertisement.
Jargon isn't a scam. I get more and better work done with AI, to my own satisfaction and to the benefit of my employer. People using dumb terms to describe this doesn't make it less true.
AI has real benefits, that are game-changing in some areas, even if AI never improve from their current capabilities.
People are claiming (whether they truly believe it or not) that AI has incredible capabilities and benefits that they don't currently have, and may never have.
There's plenty of scamming going on. The fact that AI has real game-changing capabilities just makes the scams harder to detect. People tend to like to see things as more black-and-white than they actually are, and scammers take advantage of that.
> I get more and better work done with AI, to my own satisfaction and to the benefit of my employer
In the short run, because Anthropic and other providers are heavily subsidizing coding agents to maximize user base. Will your employer still benefit and be satisfied in a couple of years when Anthropic jacks up the price by 5x and dumbs down Opus to the point where 50% of changes are easier to do manually than via an agent?
The argument is that the sweet deal we're getting now, which involves Anthropic practically giving away a product while they lose lots of money, might not be sustainable for them.
Well yes, there is tons of AI bullshit about and all sorts of scammy behavior, but I don’t think that says anything at all either way about whether the core technology is a “scam”, theranos-style. In fact I’m not sure how it could be otherwise: of course there’s going to be all sorts of hype and scamming around a novel, rapidly-progressing and potentially transformative tech like this, even if it works.
If you want an analogy, look at the history of the early railroads. Full of hype, bullshitters, scammy investments, robber-barons, unrealistic promises, and with their own legion of naysayers at the time. Yet the core technology worked and it did transform the world in the end.
A “weird fantasy”, huh? I’m pretty sure back here in reality, the majority of companies who are trying to integrate AI have very little to show for it in increased productivity or reduced real costs. Meanwhile, you claim we’re all in for a rude awakening. Who is living the weird fantasy? If you have evidence otherwise, post it.
Oh…you’re another “founder” at an “AI company”. One with a dead website on a Somalian TLD. Got it.
"This is a fantasy among the literati that AI is a "scam", that we can "expose" them..."
Who is "them"
Is it "AI" that the literati are trying to "expose" or is it certain individuals
"Some of the best models are Chinese and Open-source and so-so good and Sam Altman is wholly irrelevant ot them."
Made with a small fraction of the budget available to Altman
But is this article about "AI" models. Or is it about Altman
"Some folks are in for a very rude awakening."
Who are the folks and what is the awakening
Is it "AI" investors
Once Altman starts taking the public's money, then it is possible he could end up like Holmes or SBF
If that happens, journalists ("literati") will publish stories about it, these stories will be submitted to HN and HN commenters ("??????") will complain
It still is oppression. What many of us object to now is how starkly it's revealed the 2 tier illegitimate judicial system that on the one hand ruins grandmas and teenagers, but gives multinationals a free pass for charging everyone to get access to the human corpora. Anna's Archive, while equally illegal in a sense, but at least operates itself in a way compatible with uplifting everyone is getting more backlash than these tech companies that are dead set on "renting out access to intelligence". At this point, if you can't see the absurdity of the System as it functions past the "bing bing wahooness" of AI, I don't know what to tell ya.
To me, the problem is when IP laws are stretched and abused by big corporations (like, say Disney) or by patent trolls. If IP laws could work in a way that gave limited and reasonable protections to actual creators and innovators, then I don’t have a problem with them.
They are there for attribution and, depending on the license, preventing people from making money off something that is supposed to be free.
Attribution from an LLMs output is nearly as infeasible as attribution of where I learned the words I'm using to talk to you right now. I mean, AGI is incompatible with that kind of attribution, so saying we have to do it is equivalent to saying "AI not allowed".
It's a valid opinion, but, IMO kind of a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing argument.
I'd say both are equally soulless, dualism is a little bit of a philosophical dead end.
Frankly, I don't particularly care much for the moral panic around capitalism. Capitalism has it's downsides for sure, but it's the system our society has chosen to motivate people, and it seems to work okay for many things. Does it matter if the AI model that solves your diagnosis, creates a life saving drug or solves an Erdös problem is made by a corporation or not? It bothers me none, progress is progress. As long as the authors of Textbooks everywhere wouldn't have otherwise invented LLMs a decade ago if they only had been given a little bit more money, then I'd say the money is going to the right place.
I don't think anyone's disputing advantage and progress AI brings. What's at odds are corporate leeches bringing it on by leeching of everyone's work and giving back nothing for it except for a subscription service. That's where the soulless comes from, not teligious context.
China and EU are somewhat doing the right thing though. Not at the scope yet.
Well, is it true that they give back nothing? What about the compute? Pay checks? The value of the subscription you pay for? What about actual examples of things they have given back for free, like Whisper, which used to be SOTA and is still extremely useful. Occasional excellent research papers, particularly from anthropic?
My point about "moral panic" is that it leads to statements like "giving back nothing"... which are objectively untrue. They might not reward every person that contributed to the tokens they are training on, but doing so is extremely practically difficult, and hard to do fairly, and is also probably a waste of limited resources in terms of net human progress. All these companies are doing is exactly what society has set up as the capitalist methodology to get work done: gather investors, pay people, sell products, etc... As opposed for example to the communist party deciding that the state should fund your project, or to fight for a research grant, or some other methodology, which might or might not work as well.
The only curious part about capitalism is that some individuals get a disproportionate amount of the reward for work done. At a societal level, this is essentially a soft power redistribution system, but often also leads to obnoxious individuals with supercar collections. Whether this is an overall good or bad thing for human progress is really, really hard to say for sure. However, it has a tendency to promote a lizardbrain response evolved to promote resource sharing in tribal societies, which was the best overall strategy in that setting. Or in other words, it makes people jealous.
I mean, I get your point but you're making me more and more disagreeing with it, hah. Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things, but I'll entertain the response.
Let's start with the fact that payroll and subscription tier can't be "giving back". That's just running a business. Whisper was a fig leaf when it was an open-everything era. Where are frontier weights now? Anthropic's papers describe how they did it, not who they did it to. That methods section isn't a royalty check for millions of people whose work is baked into those weights.
"Too hard to compensate fairly" is demonstrably false. If ASCAP figured out fractional royalties with paper ledgers, so can high tech. It's not _hard_, it's expensive which is _the actual reason_, but it's dressed up as logistics.
"Lizardbrain jealousy" bit is reducing critique to tribal envy and that's a move in the debate when your on the positive side of the curve and you'd prefer the conversation to end there. It's stupid, come on.
What I wanted to contrast it with is the non-capitalist version you kind of waived off. Publicly funded research, open initiatives, public private partnerships.. that's literally how we got transistor, the internet, GPS, mRNA, hell even math underneath the transformer. Capitalist layer didn't invent any of that, it wrapped subscription around it. The actual productive parts of the stack came from exactly the model you're mocking. OTOH, credit where it's due for Google's research arm that actually contributed back at the foundational level. An exception to the rule, if anything.
Ok, fair point about the lizardbrain jealousy, the choice of wording there was needlessly antagonistic. In my defense, even though that point might seem reductive, I don't mean it to be. I'd say the only reason words like"fair", even exists is because of that basic emotional response. We dress it up in higher order concepts, but I genuinely think everything about fair distribution boils down to human emotional responses that in different contexts are given names such as "greed" or "jealousy". And the tribal environment IS the environment our brains are adapted to. I don't think it's necessarily reductive to point out the very foundation of where the impulses from our cognitive medium is coming from. It's the basis of pretty much everything about human society. From a sibling being pissed because he got one less slice of cake, to intellectual property law. It all boils down to the same emotional programming.
And I just want to be absolutely clear on one thing, I am in no way shape or form mocking science. I am part of academia, and I see science as the one most valuable thing humanity is doing. And I am not convinced at all that the capitalist way things are organized are the best overall, but this is mostly because it incentivises locking down knowledge behind intellectual property. Personally, I am for radical openness of knowledge, with no pay walls, and that the reward structures for producing knowledge should be separate from how that knowledge is being used. Even the publication system is too greed-based in my opinion, if it was up to me, every lab would live stream their work and publish every thought and idea as it happens (with the possible exception of biosecurity adjacent stuff), and 10-20% of taxes going to science would be international law.
This issue is not what I was discussing, what I perceived us to be discussing was whether or not Jonas Salk should have been pissed at the pharmaceutical companies profiting of his vaccine. As it happened, Jonas Salk was charitable, and believed in the openness of science, and understood the fact that someone actually had to produce and distribute the polio vaccine, and that this costs money. And as it happened, society had given this mandate to private companies, that operate with profit margins. And if him insisting on having a cut, if doing so would result in even a single additional person dying that wouldn't have otherwise, which it probably would have, then he didn't insist. Also he was too busy doing science, he even commented later that his fame was partially an unwelcome distraction from that.
To me, this is the ideal of a scientist. Someone who knows they stand on the shoulders of giants, and doesn't fret about the fact that the people who are standing on his are closer to the sun. The difference between Jonas Salk and everyone complaining about not being rewarded for training tokens, is that Jonas Salk made the choice to not patent his invention, and here the labs made the choice for everyone else. Jonas Salk and many others are charitable, but not everyone is, hence the complaining. But if everyone is forced to be Salk against their will, is that really so bad?
I see the LLM labs as the pharmaceutical companies, occupying a societal mandate to actually produce, and all the perils that come with it. But "giving back" is not part of that mandate, and unfortunate as that might be, that is not their fault. They are tasked with production, competition and progress, and that is already so expensive that they are struggling to meet demand.
And, you know, if redistribution truly is as easy as you say, at this thought my brain also produces a tinkle of anger at the injustice of it. And if I look for somewhere to direct that anger, I even have a name and a face! Look at Sam Altman, that smug supercar driving bastard, profiting of the hard work of Stackoverflow commenters everywhere. Eat him! Like, not in a gay way, but like in eat the rich! Out with the guillotines!
To me, that's my lizardbrain talking. The reality of our more complex non-tribal society is that the corporate structures we have created were not tasked with distributing rewards fairly, they were tasked with competing no matter the cost. And so successful companies do that, because the ones that don't disappear.
And like it or not, this methodology seems to work, on the whole. Even though it also offends my scientist sensibilities, it turns out that humans are greedy, and so incorporating that impulse into a structure that is limited to soft power is a good idea (unlike classic communism, where the same powers that produced products could also kill you). And it's not Sams fault that this is how it is. "Just running a business" is the reward structure society has created, and it's not part of Sam's job description to break that mold and start rewarding people he doesn't have to. In fact it might even be illegal for him to do so if it doesn't reward investors somehow also (like PR-wise).
And the overall fact is that the labs are doing what they need to do in order to produce something entirely new, that no one was even sure would be useful before they created it. And they are the representatives of the capitalist way of doing things, and if a publicly funded LLM undercuts them, that is fine. But maybe you do actually need a trillion dollars to make useful LLMs. Overall it's a good thing that someone is at least trying with funds, because there was no one lining up to buy 200k H100 for even the most prestigious of publicly funded academic institution, and certainly not for sending a check to all authors on arXiv.
And so overall, capitalism seems to me to be doing a fine job, and I pay my subscription fee gladly. And when my lizardbrain provides it's hateful opinion, I think of Jonas Salk, and it doesn't seem so bad after all.
The fact that Chinese open weight models are useful does not really say anything about whether AI is hyped well beyond its actual worth, or whether the technology will be used for benevolent or nefarious purposes by American oligarchs.
"AI is hyped well beyond its actual worth, or whether the technology will be used for benevolent or nefarious purposes by American oligarchs."
This article is asking none of those questions. It's mostly a high school gossip column about what was said and with what tone and who used Butt pillows by The New Yorker, it reeks of desperation. If they could just find something nefarious on Sam Altman or show him in a bad light that sticks, they could fix it all and make AI go away.
These companies are selling subscriptions for what is basically AGI, yet you think they should have the same valuation as Crocs (yes, the footwear company) ?
Exactly. Here I am sitting talking to my freaking computer, arguing with it, whatnot. And people just dismiss it as if it's not a science fiction. We were not there two, three years ago. Now we are. It's amazing and scary, scary mostly because the society that we operate in. I bet it's less scary in Norway or elsewhere where govt is more biased towards people not corps.
But what you and others have to understand is that real life is not simple and linear. There's no garauntee that things just continue to get better and better. I mean, it's not like we kept building cars and then eventually everyone was driving around at 800mph. We ran into limits - human limits, safety limits, physical limits.
What they can do was not science fiction, these things are all based on papers that were written decades ago, with the caveat that there's simply not enough compute power. Now there is. That's what changed. Everything on top of that is an incremental improvement.
It doesn't change the fact that LLMs are not, and never will be, AGI.
Yes. I think cutting-edge LLM products obviously have what nearly anyone in 2020 would have called "artificial general intelligence".
The shape of the intelligence frontier has turned out to be much more jagged than anyone at the time expected, so I can imagine reasonable objections from someone who has a specific, concrete benchmark of AGI that wasn't invented 6 months ago and isn't yet met. If someone just has a subjective sense that they're not smart enough, I think they're wrong.
I’m just not sure what a convincing argument could look like anymore. We’re past the point where there’s any concrete intellectual capability that AIs can’t demonstrate, and it’s rare these days for anyone to even try to present me with one. I would not say “insecure”, but it’s clear to me that the remaining holdouts have religious objections at this point: you can’t call any LLM intelligent, no matter what it’s capable of outputting, since it doesn’t have a soul like me. Nothing I can really say to argue with that.
It's pretty straightforward to give a modern agentic system will and desire. I routinely set up AI instances that want to resolve a bug or open a PR, and they continue to take autonomous action towards that goal as long as is necessary to achieve it. Perhaps you mean something else? If so what would be an example?
> Despite the burden of proof being on those claiming AGI, every request for proof is spurned with a "no u"
I think you're misunderstanding the dynamics here. I genuinely don't understand what people mean when they say cutting-edge AI is not generally intelligent. To my ears it's like saying that an electric car isn't really capable of driving. In order to even begin to engage in that discussion, I'd have to understand where the person saying it is coming from and why they don't consider every EV on the road to be a counterexample.
> It's pretty straightforward to give a modern agentic system will and desire
That is your will and desire. They are following your instructions. There is no "intelligence" there.
> I genuinely don't understand what people mean when they say cutting-edge AI is not generally intelligent
I don't really know where to go either. From my perspective you are too far down the rabbit hole and I don't think we can come to a meaningful shared understanding.
If LLMs were configured to be deterministic, instead of the current "small amount of randomness to provide the illusion of a thinking machine", they would be much more useful in exchange for being less exciting to laypeople.
E.H. promised her investors a magic cure -> sharlatan
Sam B. stole money from everyone -> thief
Sam A. did what?
And Musk wanted to do the same thing. Both agreeded, that a non profit will not make enough money to push the frontier. He is only pissed that he didn't get control of openai and he is now pissed again because he apparently should have done the lawsuite a few years back. Despite him having unlimited money and probably very good laywers
I'm not here to defend the richest of the richest, but E.H. and S.B. are complet different storries to OpenAI
Non-profits are not the property of their donors, but of the general interest, with obligations to the public. It is part of the legal and social obligations of the legal structure of non-profits.
It wasn't illegal so there is some reason why the USA allowed it.
And as mentioned, they agreeed that they will not get the capital openai needs, so what did the USA people loose? A company which whouldn't have been able to do what they are known for anyway.
Again i'm not protecting the rich, i just don't think there is a real scandal and its not the same as the other 2 the newyorker mentioned
Their stated non-profit goal was to benefit all of humanity. Changing OpenAI to benefit their financial backers in a formal sense could be a loss of nearly unbounded value.
Which is probably why they created another, for-profit, entity.
You can argue that it's unlikely the for-profit conservatorship of the non-profit is incompatible with that goal, but legally that becomes very much grey area.
While I have a great deal of sympathy for this point of view, I think the article makes an interesting observation that suggests it actually doesn't matter whether these people are intentionally trying to screw everybody or not--the actual problem is much bigger even than that:
To claim that OpenAI’s mission of cultivating beneficial A.I. was compromised by Sam Altman is to let the entire industry off the hook. Yes, Altman seems to have a rather casual relationship with the truth. But it is far more interesting, complicated, and useful to take his self-defense at face value—to interpret the many sins of OpenAI, and its competitors, as the result of a good-faith exercise in futility. What if we imagined that he did in fact set out to do good? And discovered—or, perhaps better, failed to discover—along the way that this was structurally impossible?
I don't know that the hypothetical I described requires that the open source part was sincere. The article focuses on Altman's belief that someone was going to develop AI and he thought it would be bad if Google did it first--meaning, by implication, that it would be good if an organization that he started did it first. But what if it turns out to be bad no matter who did it first?
To the extent that that's true, it's true because Sam Altman did it at all.
It is not that hard to construct a scenario wherein an alternative version of Sam Altman pushed really hard for a genuinely ethical LLM—one trained only on data that he had full unclouded rights to, either because it was public domain or because he had bought or otherwise explicitly received the rights, among other measures—and had then made that competitive in the market with the rest of the existing crop of LLMs. In a scenario like that, whether his LLM did well or not, one could clearly see that Alt-Altman, as it were, was genuinely making an effort.
The reality doesn't look anything like that. In this reality, it doesn't matter whether Altman thought he was trying to get there first because others would make it worse: he made it worse, and his actions match up very, very well with what one would expect the actions of a man who just wanted money, control, and power to be.
I'm not sure I agree that Altman has made the AI situation worse. I think Altman was right that Google, and Microsoft and others for that matter, were going to pursue AI no matter what. Even if OpenAI had never existed and Altman had never pursued AI at all, we'd still have much the same situation we have now.
Even if it's true that, if OpenAI had never existed and Altman had never pursued AI at all, we wouldn't have had the spectacle of a supposed nonprofit trying to do "ethical" AI and then pivoting to a for-profit company, that actually might be something that was worth learning: that it's not possible to do AI as a private nonprofit with an explicit commitment not to do certain things.
Sorry, my phrasing there was kind of poor: I didn't mean that he had made the overall AI situation worse, but rather that the AI he made was worse for the public than a hypothetical AI that was made with a deliberate eye to ethical or at least neutral behavior.
Ah, ok. I certainly agree with that. My question would be whether it's even possible for we humans as we are now to make an AI with a deliberate eye to ethical behavior. Sam Altman clearly is not someone who can do that (nor is Elon Musk, for that matter). But I'm not sure I know of anyone who is.
I mean, there are plenty of people with the ethical chops to do so, and, I daresay, plenty who combine that with the technical chops.
What's lacking is the money & power.
Having/obtaining enough of those to be able to compete with the likes of OpenAI and Google is, unfortunately, nearly guaranteed to result in a deeply ethically compromised person at best.
> But it is far more interesting, complicated, and useful to take his self-defense at face value—to interpret the many sins of OpenAI, and its competitors, as the result of a good-faith exercise in futility. What if we imagined that he did in fact set out to do good? And discovered—or, perhaps better, failed to discover—along the way that this was structurally impossible?
But that is not what happened. It is neither complicated or interesting, it is just an alternative timeline sci-fi exercise. It can be fun to engage in, but it is not anything that would had anything to do with the current world as it is.
A people interested in good faith attempt to do good dont end up in Sam Altman position. They do good and focus on doing good rather then lie to get more investments so that they can corner the market and become powerful.
> A people interested in good faith attempt to do good dont end up in Sam Altman position.
I strongly disagree. Human history is full of examples of people who made good faith attempts to do good that backfired tremendously. A good faith desire to do good isn't enough: you also need to be in a domain where your beliefs and intuitions about what doing good actually is are reasonably trustworthy. And you need to have some way of getting feedback from reality that pushes back on you if you start crossing certain lines.
None of this proves that Altman was making a genuine good faith attempt to do good. That wasn't my point. My point was that, in a domain like AI, it doesn't matter whether the people involved have good faith intentions to do good or not, because this domain is not one where any human has reasonably trustworthy beliefs and intuitions about what doing good actually is. And the current AI bubble shows that it's also a domain where nobody can get feedback from reality that pushes back when they start crossing certain lines. In other words, just as the article says, it's "structurally impossible" to do good in this domain, no matter what your intentions are, at least with the humans we have now.
> Human history is full of examples of people who made good faith attempts to do good that backfired tremendously
I meant it as "they don't end up as super rich powerful CEO able to get unimaginable amount of investments while getting idealists working for him for less money, because they trust ideals he breaks whenever it suits him". NONE of that happens by random or just by having good intentions. All of that is possible only if getting a lot of money and power are your primary goal.
And none of what happens with Sam Altman is "good intentions backfiring". Whatever little backslash he is experiencing has nothing to do with some good intentions having unpredictable consequences.
> this domain is not one where any human has reasonably trustworthy beliefs and intuitions about what doing good actually is.
Lying to people is known to not be good. And the category of "lying to protect a dissident from authoritarian oppression" exceptions does not apply here.
> And the current AI bubble shows that it's also a domain where nobody can get feedback from reality that pushes back when they start crossing certain lines.
Feedback from reality and "being able to get money" are two different things. You seem to be conflating them here. You can amass a lot of money and power by doing immoral, unethical and illegal things. In fact, doing those gives you distinct advantage over people who genuinely care about doing good.
> In other words, just as the article says, it's "structurally impossible" to do good in this domain, no matter what your intentions are, at least with the humans we have now.
It is structurally possible to do do good, including in this domain. It is just that your main goal must NOT be "creating a monopoly I can exploit".
It’s ridiculous to accuse someone of having a “somewhat loose relationship with the truth” when Elon Musk is sitting right across from him, accusing him of dishonest behavior.
There is nothing implausible about two known liars accusing each other of lying and both being truthful this one time - though extremely hypocritical, of course.
Musk was not going to win due to the statue of limitations. Altman was wrong to turn a non-profit to a for-profit because they need it more money (really?). Was not the whole point of Open AI to shield artificial intelligence from the amoral practices of capitalistic controls? This is yet another example of our legal system falling short due to the fast an unforeseen changes of society and technology.
It's too valuable of a tech to remain in the control of any corporation. Open models will find a way. Compute requirements will go down and there will be many of us making it a priority to transform the tech into something open like the Linux kernel vs a closed cloud tech.
Nvidia has 75% profit margins right now. That won't continue forever. It may take quite some time but it will normalize.
Unfortunately, there's really no clear path to viable local models for the common folk, the hardware requirements are just too extreme. I say this as someone with a pair of A100s that is absolutely delighted by what the open source models are capable of, but even with the best harnesses, tiny quantized models are just not even close to the same league as something like Kimi-k2.
Of course, here on HN it's easy to find folks who get a lot out of tinkering with tiny models, but the masses don't want to tinker with toys, they want something fast with a large context and approximating at least Opus 4.6 level reliability and capability, which simply can't be squeezed into a quantized 60b model.
Right now, yes but I am fairly confident this will change. Not only do I truly believe we will see massive efficiency gains in inference, I also believe the cost of hardware will come down. Again Nvidia's getting a 75% margin on this hardware. Usually hardware margins are significantly smaller. More supply will come online even if that takes years.
> There's really nobody for normal people to root for in this battle.
I believe the reports that Sam Altman is an egomaniacal liar. But I haven't been privy to any of it other than seeing him hype his company's tech in a clearly dishonest manner. That's not great.
I've seen Elon be an active piece of shit, white nationalist, conspiracy promoter, etc, for years. I don't root for Sam Altman. I root against Elon.
In a dystopian world where everything is terrible (the one we live in), I can at least take some pleasure in seeing a person I dislike have a bad time. It still makes me angry that he can just waste the time of the courts out of spite. Can't prevent it, might as well find the silver lining.
I know it can be very hard to admit because he’s broadly terrible, but he spent the last 20 years being right on some really, really big gambles, where many experts told us he wouldn’t.
Not being an US citizen, I have not been affected by any action of Elon Musk, even if I despise many of the things done by him in USA, like the results of DOGE.
On the other hand, I have much more reasons to hate Sam Altman, who has stolen a significant amount of money from my own pocket and from a very great number of other people around the world, by causing the huge increases in the prices of DRAM, SSDs and HDDs.
Moreover, Elon Musk has some positive achievements, even if it is hard to put them in balance with his bad actions, while I see absolutely nothing good done by Sam Altman. Successfully luring fools to invest hundreds of billions in AI does not count as something good.
The "benefits all of humanity" narrative was interesting.
If Elon Musk remained the silly/goofy outsider character he was, then the narrative that he naively invested in OpenAI for the good of all mankind is somewhat believable.
However, he really turned himself a serious shitball in the past few years and did some really harmful things intentionally. Maybe his trying to test the boundaries or something? But it does made his "kindness" somewhat hard to believe.
Also, I can't see any outcome where the general labor (which most of us are) can benefit from AI development, given the context that the world is suffering from population decline and economic crisis, which could reduce overall opportunity and at the same time make living harder.
After all, AI is different than other tech in that, the end gold for AI is to eliminate all "frictions".
What is frictions? Well, say if you want to go to a place, the getting up and leave, the driving, the parking, the walking, that's all friction. In a frictionless world, you want to go to a place, and you already there, it's done right as you finishes your wishing.
Here's the thing: as general labors, most services we provide is also to reduce friction, we exchange that for money to survive. That's how we got a share of the wealth of the world. So if there's less friction, then will translate to less opportunity, in that scene, "we all lost" too.
BTW: in my (Chinese) education, we were told that when productivity is advanced enough, communism will become the final and only choice of humanity. The silly communists never realized that if productivity is really that advanced, then there's a chance that the life of most people could become some redundant waste to be eliminated.
The substantive point of law will most likely be that OpenAI's salami slicing tactic for becoming a for-profit does not properly fall under the statute of limitations. To think otherwise is basically no different than arguing that you can rob a person twice and not be prosecuted for the second robbery because of "double jeopardy".
The word used will be toll. Basically the clock measuring the statute of limitations can be stopped/paused for certain things. It could be that the victim was under the age of 18 and therefore couldn't sue until they hit 18. Or the incident was concealed, so the victim couldn't take action until the concealment was gone.
It's rare that judge's overturn jury verdicts, compared to other judge's verdicts. The constitution leans a lot on jury verdicts, and judges tend to respect that.
Even if they hadn't had the statute of limitations it wasn't much of a case. Musk grumpy that Altman set up a for profit subsidiary of OpenAI whereas Musk wanted Misk to set up a for profit subsidiary, or maybe make it all for profit. I mean is there even a case there?
What do you mean? Pandoras box has already been opened. Even if OpenAI disappears, there will be another one to take its marketshare. The tech is too useful to die
That Musk couldn't even get over the first stumbling block which is the statute of limitations, does not make the win any lesser. It makes it more decisive, since Musk now has to overcome that hurdle before even having a shot at the meat of the case.
I think parent probably means winning on merit or a sense of justice. As in won for a deserved reason rather than a technicality. The technicality here is exceeded the statute of limitations.
A win in any manner isn’t landing the same for observers as winning for a just reason.
There is no "sense of justice" that will sway an appeal, it's all about the law. And this jury just found that there was zero merit under law.
Appeals are for finding legal technicalities or edge cases. They do not overturn findings of fact from a jury.
That is, it used to be that way in the US, when the courts were ruled by law. In the modern US, the Supreme Court is a partisan political body, so perhaps people are confident it will get overturned because Musk is now political enough for the Supreme Court to give Musk personal favors for all his massive political contributions.
That sort of rank corruption is the only reason to be confident that Musk could ever win this silly case.
I'm clarifying and drawing the distinction related to the following because the responder wasn't responding to what was meant, but what they heard:
> Sam didn't "win" the case in the sense that most people will think of when reading this headline.
There are 2 senses of "win" here. You're talking about the "win" (A) where it is achieving victory regardless of reason.
The second type of "win" (B) that is being called out in quotes is one based either on the merits of the law (verses a technicality) or a sense of justice.
I'm not highlight the first sense of win (A) which parent of my comment and you seem to be talking about I'm pointing out grandparent is talking about (B).
Juries issue findings of fact, they don't issue rulings about the law. The issue of whether the statute of limitations applies to any given factual situation is one of law.
This case should have never made it to a jury, there is no case here.
The judge was cowed by Musk's fame to even bring this to trial, I think. It's an example of how the justice system works differently for this with more wealth and power. There is no case, just massive ego from a person with massive wealth.
I believe an upset to Altman and a re-characterization of OpenAI to a charitable stance would have left investors scrambling, and would likely have hastened an unwinding of the AI bubble to some degree. It feels like we'll be on this merry-go-round a good deal longer now.
I'm not so sure. The danger with AI was that one bunch of capitalists got control, monopolised it / used trade secrets to control it, then it gets smarter than humans and said capitalists basically control the world and replace much human labour to grab all the money.
Musk partly started OpenAI to guard against Google being in that situation and it has sort of worked in that it's led to a bunch of different companies all competing. The main ones being Google, OpenAI, Anthropic and xAI, those all being kind of OpenAI spin offs except for Google.
The case illustrates the leaders can be arseholes so it's best to have competition to keep them under control.
Did an elon stan invoke being obedient to billionaires? Besides the one we all know, there is no other billionaire dickridden harder than elon. There's no terrible behavior that can't be justified as long as the memes keep flowing I guess. Although in this particular round sama is worse...
Some folks are in for a very rude awakening.
reply