zlacker

>>isaacf+(OP)
This seems an important article, if for no other reason than it brings the betrayal of its foundational claim still brazenly present in OpenAI's name from the obscurity of HN comments going back years into the public light and the mainstream.

They've achieved marvellous things, OpenAI, but the pivot and long-standing refusal to deal with it honestly leaves an unpleasant taste, and doesn't bode well for the future, especially considering the enormous ethical implications of advantage in the field they are leading.

>>mellos+pe
Seriously, is there anyone naive enough to have swallowed any of their trips? Corporations don't have ethical compasses, much less corporations founded by VCs aka professional salesmen.

>>andrep+io
I (parent commenter) may be naive but I actually believe the original intent was probably sincere; I suspect either political shenanigans, greed, gatekeeping or any number of other vices have come rushing with success and shedloads of money, and the original ethical stance was not accompanied by the significant moral courage needed to sustain purity under enormous pressure from either less principled stakeholders, or temptation and ego.

>>mellos+Bt
But intention has nothing to do with it!

All of the corrupting forces you listed are foreseeable, even inevitable given a certain corporate structure and position in a market. It is simply bad business, naivete, that made them think they could realistically achieve what they wanted with a company that survives by making money.

Maybe, just maybe, it's not always wise to blindly take people, in positions of power, with much to gain from your believing them, at their word...?

(And if it was true naivete, I don't understand why the consensus isn't "let the company die, a better one will take its place, these people can't run a company" a la the vaunted free market principles that imbue the community of sycophants rooting for Musk et al.)