• surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Well yeah. DeepSeek destroyed any illusion that they could establish and maintain a monopoly on AI.

  • nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    establish a nonprofit
    get funding from corporate donors
    produce a product
    generate a profit
    ?
    profit

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    They asked chatGPT for a business plan and it gave them hallucinations and half a business plan for a non-profit coalmining organization.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      That or they have worked out that even if AGI is achievable with the current architecture the existence of R1 and other Chinese models essentially means they will never make a profit at it.

      If they achieve their goal, within 48 hours the open source community will have replicated it.

  • Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    investors in OpenAI’s commercial entity were capped at making 100 times their money

    They should never be allowed to call this a “non-profit” (and probably even get tax exemptions?)

    What a dirty lie in the first place!

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      OpenAI’s commercial entity

      They should never be allowed to call this a “non-profit”

      They never did. The nonprofit parent owned shares in a for-profit subsidiary, which was structured in a way that investors in the for-profit subsidiary could never control the company (the nonprofit would own a controlling share) and had their gains capped at 100x.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        That’s still a common structure used by billionaires to justify reaping millions of dollars in revenue and still claim, “but I own a non-profit”. Also, to say the nonprofit controls the profit part would require the governance and the management hierarchies to be separate to avoid conflict of interests. But this has never been the case. Now they’re becoming a public benefit company, it will be even less the case, with both boards being one and the same. This will effectively keep the good-will façade while allowing them to lift the profit caps for their friends. It’s all PR bullshit.

    • Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      A maximum of 10,000% profit is “nonprofit”? Any country that allows for something like this is a joke.

    • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      No, those were the terms when the company was “for profit.” Now that they’re “nonprofit” the investors can make unlimited profit.

      The billions of dollars the company raised in its last two funding rounds were contingent on successfully removing this limit on investor returns.

    • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Oh, thanks for pointing that out… my head was just going “Fuck Sam Altman … Fuck Sam Altman … Fuck Sam Altman … Fuck Sam Altman … Fuck Sam Altman …” —

  • captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    ·
    1 day ago

    “Previously, investors in OpenAI’s commercial entity were capped at making 100 times their money before the rest of its profits flowed back to the nonprofit.

    With the new PBC subsidiary, OpenAI spokesperson Steve Sharpe tells me that investors and employees will own regular stock with no cap on how much it can appreciate. “

    They got exactly what they want anyway. This is no victory.

    • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 hours ago

      The billions of dollars the company raised in its last two funding rounds were contingent on successfully removing this limit on investor returns.

    • NoSpotOfGround@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      This doesn’t make sense to me. The ultimate value of shares is in the dividends they represent, no? If there are no dividends ever, what are they sharing in? Is it just a postponement until future dividends? A share in control of activities?

      I get that there’ll be speculation that will keep values increasing, and selling can net a profit, but what does the last share-holder get?

      • futatorius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        The ultimate value of shares is in the dividends they represent, no?

        No. The actual (and only) value of shares is investors’ expectation of the value of future appreciation in share value and of dividends. And there is not a constant relationship between share values and dividends: the price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio can vary hugely depending on the nature of the business and on investor sentiment-- for example, P/E can be massive during a speculative frenzy, with no underlying reason besides wishful thinking.

        • monogram@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          This is just every economic endeavour in existence nowadays, the issue with cryptocurrency is that it contains no guard rails (+ environmental issues)

          Unless you work for a corporation, ask your employer what their exit strategy is.

      • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Technology and intellectual property, including patents. These are only put up for sale if the company is liquidated or declared bankrupt.