zlacker

>>himara+(OP)
This is why, when you claim to be running a non-profit to "benefit humankind," you shouldn't put all your resources into a for-profit subsidiary. Eventually, the for-profit arm, and its investors, will find its nonprofit parent a hindrance, and an insular board of directors won't stand a chance against corporate titans.

>>jasonh+4t
> This is why, when you claim to be running a non-profit to "benefit humankind," you shouldn't put all your resources into a for-profit subsidiary.

To be frank, they need to really spell out what "benefitting mankind" is. How is it measured? Or is it measured? Or is it just "the board says this isn't doing that so it's not doing that"?

It's honestly a silly slogan.

>>silenc+DN
They should define it, sure. Here's what I'd expect this means:

- Not limiting access to a universally profitable technology by making it only accessible to highest bidder (e.g. hire our virtual assistants for 30k a year).

- Making models with a mind to all threats (existential, job replacement, scam uses)

- Potentially open-sourcing models that are deemed safe

So far I genuinely believe they are doing the first two and leaving billions on the table they could get by jacking their price 10x or more.