zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
There is a lot in here but turning a non-profit into a for-profit definitely should be challenged. Otherwise why wouldn't everyone start as a non-profit, develop your IP, and then switch to 'for-profit' mode once you got something that works? You don't pay income taxes and your investors get write offs.

>>silico+z11
This. Even when we ignore the whole ethical aspect of "AI for benefit of humanity" and all that philosophic stuff, there are very real legal reasons why OpenAI should never have been allowed to switch to for profit. They were only able to circumvent this with their new dual company structure, but this should still not be legal.

>>sigmoi+i31
The point of their charter is not to make money, it's to develop AI for the benefit of all, which I interpret to mean putting control and exploitation of AI in the hands of the public.

The reality: we don't even get public LLM models, let alone source code, while their coffers overfloweth.

Awesome for OpenAI and their employees! Every else goes without. Public benefit my arse.

>>dkjaud+i71
While I completely agree, I think we've seen enough to realize that something as powerful as what OpenAI is developing shouldn't be freely released to the public. Not as a product, nor as source code.

Dangerous and powerful things like weapons and chemicals are restricted in both physical and informational form for safety reasons. AI needs to be treated similarly.

>>TheKar+9l1
So you believe that Microsoft can on average more be trusted with dangerous technology than humanity as a whole?

A bold claim given their track record