zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
If OpenAI became a non-profit with this in its charter:

“resulting technology will benefit the public and the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable. The corporation is not organized for the private gain of any person"

I don't think it is going to be hard to show that they are doing something very different than what they said they were going to do.

>>troupe+Kd1
So much of the discussion here is about being a non-profit, but per your quote I think the key is open source. Here we have people investing in an open source company, and the company never opened their source. Rather than open source technology everyone could profit from, they kept everything closed and sold exclusive access. I think it is going to be hard for OpenAI to defend their behavior, and a huge amount of damages to be claimed for all the money investors had to spend catching up.

>>stubis+qi2
I might be too generous, but my interpretation is that the ground changed so fast that they needed to shift to continue the mission given the new reality. After ChatGPT, every for-profit and its dog is going hard. Talent can join the only Mother Teresa in the middle, or compete with them as they stupidly open all the source the second they discover anything. You can’t compete with the biggest labs in the world who have infinite GPU, with selfless open sourcers running training on their home PC’s. And you need to be in the game to have any influence over the eventual direction. I’d still bet the goal is the same, but how it’s done has changed by necessity.

>>richar+yn2
> After ChatGPT, every for-profit and its dog is going hard.

After ChatGPT was not released to the public, every for-profit raced to reproduce and improve on it. The decision not to release early and often with a restrictive license helped create that competition for funds and talent. If the company had been truly open, competition would have either had the choice of moving quickly, spending less money and contributing to the common core, or spending more money, going slower as they clean room implement the open code they can't use, and trying to compete alone. This might have been a huge win for the open source model, making the profitable decision to be to contribute to the commons.