nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com

Archived version, for posterity.

Take note Bluesky fans: Your “benevolent” controlling nonprofit can quickly become a for-profit if enough cash is thrown at the governing board…

  • JasminIstMuede@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    7·
    5 days ago

    I’m actually surprised AGI isn’t better defined in the contract, or that there isn’t a burden of proof so that they can’t lie, but that was definitely on purpose. I really can’t imagine them severing that tie though; OpenAI simply isn’t financially stable enough, especially in the long term, and I’m sure they know it too.

    • hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      3·
      5 days ago

      I’m actually surprised AGI isn’t better defined in the contract

      There’ll be a significant lawsuit if OpenAI tries such a declaration without MS on board with it.

      But i’m not sure how much OpenAI is even investing toward AGI. LLM is their bread and butter and I don’t know many experts that think LLM is the path to AGI.

      • JasminIstMuede@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        1·
        4 days ago

        The fact that OpenAI have waived the threat of using the clause implies to me that they’ve defined it relatively loosely… or just that they’re really stupid, which may also be possible.
        I did a little bit of looking and couldn’t find a figure on how much OpenAI spends on AGI compared to GenAI research, but in looking, I found this interesting:
        https://openai.com/index/scale-the-benefits-of-ai/
        Which begins with the following:

        We are making progress on our mission to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity. Every week, over 250 million people around the world use ChatGPT to enhance their work, creativity, and learning…
        Which seems like a shady placement of two unrelated things next to one another. Makes me wonder if texts like this have the goal of selling GenAI as AGI one day.