[eightnoteight]

> here they explain why they had to betray their core mission. But they don't refute that they did betray it.

you are assuming that their core mission is to "Build an AGI that can help humanity for free and as a non-profit", the way their thinking seems to be is "Build an AGI that can help humanity for free"

they figured it was impossible to achieve their core mission by doing it in a non-profit way, so they went with the for-profit route but still stayed with the mission to offer it for free once the AGI is achieved

Several non-profits sell products to further increase their non-profit scale, would it be okay for OpenAI non-profits to sell products that came in the process of developing AGI so that they can keep working on building their AGI? museums sell stuff to continue to exist so that they can continue to build on their mission, same for many other non-profits. the OpenAI structure just seems to take a rather new version of that approach by getting venture capital (due to their capital requirements)

[drcode]

The problem of course is that they frequently go back on their promises (see they changes in their usage guidelines regarding military projects) so excuse me if I don't believe them when they say they'll voluntarily give away their AGI tech for the greater good of humanity

[ethbr1]

Wholeheartedly agreed.

The easiest way to cut through corporate BS is to find distinguishing characteristics of the contrary motivation. In this case:

OpenAI says: To deliver AI for the good of all humanity, it needs the resources to compete with hyperscale competitors, so it needs to sell extremely profitable services.

Contrary motivation: OpenAI wants to sell extremely profitable services to make money, and it wants to control cutting edge AI to make even more money.

What distinguishing characteristics exist between the two motivations?

Because from where I'm sitting, it's a coin flip as to which one is more likely.

Add in the facts that (a) there's a lot of money on the table & (b) Sam Altman has a demonstrated propensity for throwing people under the bus when there's profit in it for himself, and I don't feel comfortable betting on OpenAI's altruism.

PS: Also, when did it become acceptable for a professional fucking company to publicly post emails in response to a lawsuit? That's trashy and smacks of response plan set up and ready to go.

[KoolKat23]

There is no fixed point at which you can say it achieves AGI (artificial general intelligence) it's a spectrum. Who decides when they've reached that point as they can always go further.

If this is the case, then they should be more open with their older models such as 3.5, I'm very sure industry insiders actually building these already know the fundamentals of how it works.

[HarHarVeryFunny]

An interesting aspect of OpenAI's agreement with Microsft is that, until the point of AGI, Microsoft have IP rights to the tech. I'm not sure exactly what's included in that agreement (model, weights, training data, dev tools?), but it's enough that Nadella at least made brave sounding statements during OpenAI's near implosion that "they had everything" and would not be disrupted if OpenAI were to disappear overnight. I would guess they might have a major disruption in continuing development, but I guess at least the right to carry on using what they've already got access to.

The interesting part of this is that whatever rights Microsoft has do not extend to any OpenAI model/software that is deemed to be AGI, and it seems they must therefore have agreed how this would be determined, which would be interesting to know!

There was a recent interview of Shane Legg (DeepMind co-founder) by Dwarkesh Patel where he gave his own very common sense definition of AGI as being specifically human-level AI, with the emphasis on general. His test for AGI would be to have a diverse suite of human level cognitive tasks (covering the spectrum of human ability), with any system that could pass these tests then being subject to ad hoc additional testing. Any system that not only passed the test suite but also performed at human level on any further challenge tasks might then reasonably be considered to have achieved AGI (per this definition).

[mikkom]

> still stayed with the mission to offer it for free once the AGI is achieved

And based on how they have acted in the past, how much do you trust they will act as they now say when/if they achieve AGI?