Nothing is absurd about expecting a company, run by a group of people, to uphold the values and mission its existence was predicated upon, down to the name of the company itself. Especially in such a short time frame.
Of course it's absurd: it was all a game of playing pretend. That's the fantasy part.
It hadn't been open AI for a long time.
The entity that you're referring to no longer exists at present. They can revive it by splitting these inherently at-conflict entities apart.
With tens of billions in funding via stock liquidation they can go back to pursuing actual open AI and have a lot of money to throw at doing so, without concerns for conflict with a for-profit mission in relation to a funding source.
Today the mission of being open with their AI tech is at conflict with the funding base: GPT commercialization. At least with how they have been operating for years now. There's no fixing that in the current structure.
All great points, it’s wild that this small non-profit board had so much power with so little at stake for themselves. That’s a typical feature of a non-profit board, but in this case the entity wasn’t a typical non-profit.
To your points, such a split makes too much sense and the ship has probably sailed when the employees showed they have no loyalty or responsibilities to the organization itself.
It hadn't been open AI for a long time.
The entity that you're referring to no longer exists at present. They can revive it by splitting these inherently at-conflict entities apart.
With tens of billions in funding via stock liquidation they can go back to pursuing actual open AI and have a lot of money to throw at doing so, without concerns for conflict with a for-profit mission in relation to a funding source.
Today the mission of being open with their AI tech is at conflict with the funding base: GPT commercialization. At least with how they have been operating for years now. There's no fixing that in the current structure.