undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjltsiren2y ago0 comments

I think the real issue is that OpenAI was doomed to fail from the beginning. AI is commercially too valuable to be developed by an organization with a mission like them. Eventually they had to make a choice: either become a for-profit without any pretensions about the good of humanity, or stay true to the mission and abandon ambitions of being at the cutting edge of AI development.

A non-profit could not have beaten the superpowers in developing the atomic bomb, and a non-profit cannot beat commercial interests in developing AI.

0 comments

jart2y ago

I always thought the structure was there to pull the wool over the eyes of the world's smartest researchers, to get them to agree to help them build a doomsday sort of technology. I never expected the board would be drinking their own kool aid.

adolph2y ago

> either become a for-profit without any pretensions about the good of humanity

Not a day passes that I don't hear from some company that has pretensions about the good of humanity and how they are leading the way to it. Plenty of non-profits and government orgs have the same pretensions.

Davidzheng2y ago

I think it's different bc atomic bomb is pure cost and AI can have returns from products. But your overall point may stand

dboreham2y ago

There's definitely (very large) returns from having atomic weapons.

lazide2y ago

Having the bomb first has infinite ROI.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse