zlacker

>>gdb+(OP)
Wow. Screw non-profit, we want to get rich.

Sorry guys, but before you were probably able to get talent which is not (primarily) motivated by money. Now you are just another AI startup. If the cap would be 2x, it could still make sense. But 100x times? That's laughable! And the split board, made up of friends and closely connected people smells like "greenwashing" as well. Don't get me wrong, it's totally ok to be an AI startup. You just shouldn't pretend to be a non-profit then...

>>jpdus+ew
We have to raise a lot money to get a lot of compute, so we've created the best structure possible that will allow us to do so while maintaining maximal adherence to our mission. And if we actually succeed in building the safe AGI, we will generate far more value than any existing company, which will make the 100x cap very relevant.

>>ilyasu+EE
What makes you believe that you'll get there first?

>>m_ke+dG
I share the sentiment with you. Majority of the 'research' from OpenAI has been scaling up the known algorithms and almost all the models have been built on top of research from outside of OpenAI. My assessment is that OpenAI is currently not the leader in the field but they want to get there by attracting talent through PR and money, which IMHO is a fine strategy.