[stub for offtopicness]
Trend following with chutzpah, particulalry through acquisitions, has been a winning strategy for Zuckerberg and his shareholders.
If they come up with anything of consequence, we'll have an incredibly higher level of Facebook monitoring of our lives in all scopes. Also such a level of AI crap (info/disinfo in politics, crime, arts, etc.) that ironically in-person exchanges will be valued more highly than today. When everything you see on pixels is suspect, only the tangible can be trusted.
Moore's Law wasn't a law, it was a reflection of investment which reach dizzying heights in its heyday. I think there's a ton of over-hype now but some stuff will come out of it.
Sorry, you don't lose people when you treat them well. Add to that Altman's penchant for organisational dysfunction and the (in part resulting) illiquidity of OpenAI's employees' equity-not-equity and this makes a lot of sense. Broadly, it's good for the American AI ecosystem for this competition for talent to exist.
That is, when you create this cutting edge, powerful tech, it turns out that people are willing to pay gobs of money for it. So if somehow OpenAI had managed to stay as a non-profit (let's pretend training didn't cost a bajillion dollars), they still would have lost all of their top engineers to deeper pockets if they didn't pursue an aggressive monetization strategy.
That's why I want to gag a little when I hear all this flowery language about how AI will cure all these diseases and be a huge boon to humanity. Let's get real - people are so hyped about this because they believe it will make them rich. And it most likely will, and to be clear, I don't blame them. The only thing I blame folks for is trying to wrap "I'd like to get rich" goals in moralistic BS.
Based on behaviour, it appears they didn't think they'd do anything impactful. When OpenAI accidentally created something important Altman immediately (a) actually got involved to (b) reverse course.
> if somehow OpenAI had managed to stay as a non-profit (let's pretend training didn't cost a bajillion dollars), they still would have lost all of their top engineers to deeper pockets if they didn't pursue an aggressive monetization strategy
I'm not so sure. OpenAI would have held a unique position as both first mover and moral arbiter. That's a powerful place to be, albeit not a position Silicon Valley is comfortable or competent in.
I'm also not sure pursuing monetisation requires a for-profit structure. That's more a function of the cost of training, though again, a licensing partnership with, I don't know, Microsoft, would alleviate that pressure without requiring giving up control.
Which part are you skeptical about? that people also like to do good, or that AI can do good?
> Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. Since our research is free from financial obligations, we can better focus on a positive human impact.
As soon as the power of AI became apparent, everyone wanted (and in some ways, needed) to make bank. This would have been true even if the original training costs weren't so high.