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
It is nice to see normies noticing and caring, but the article leaves out some details that obscure comments still stubbornly bring up: like Musk founded it as a 501(c)(3) and put Altman in charge, and only once he had to leave with conflicts of interest Altman founded "OpenAI LP," the for-profit workaround so they didn't have to obey those pesky charity rules. That's when they stopped releasing models and weights, and started making their transparent claims that "the most ethical way to give people access to charge them fucktons of money and rip the API away when we feel like it."

>>IAmNot+Po1
This scam of taking over non-profits from the founders is super common these days. Look at how they tried to kick Stallman out of the free software foundation by throwing together a bunch of allegations. It failed, but it worked for kicking Aubrey De Grey out of SENS after they received 20 million and now kicking out the founder of Project Veritas. The donors don't support any of these actions, because they care about the mission and not who was offended by a few sentences in an email sent decades ago, but the cliques on the boards do it anyway and ultimately trash the reputation and fundraising capabilities of the institution they are claiming to save.