The Pentagon has its eye on the leading AI company, which this week softened its ban on military use.

  • funkforager@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    232
    ·
    9 months ago

    Remember when open ai was a nonprofit first and foremost, and we were supposed to trust they would make AI for good and not evil? Feels like it was only Thanksgiving…

    • NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      9 months ago

      I remember when they pretended to be that. The fact that the board got replaced when it tried to exert its own power proves it was a facade from the beginning. All the PR benefits of “taking safety seriously” with none of those pesky “safety vs profitability” concerns.

    • guacupado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I stopped having faith in nonprofits after seeing how much the successful ones pay their CEOs. They’re just businesses riding the low-tax train until they’re rich enough to not care anymore.

      • camelCaseGuy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t understand that point of view? Why would they pay their CEOs less than any other company? If they did, then they would either not be able to hire CEOs, have the shittiest CEOs or have CEOs that wouldn’t give a crap. People don’t live on welfare, especially highly connected, highly educated people like CEOs.

        • grepe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Why do you think lower paid CEO must be shitty? There turns out to be very little link between the CEO and CEO pay and the company performance… they are only paid a lot cause they are in the position of power to directly influence their salary.

          • uranibaba@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            they are only paid a lot cause they are in the position of power to directly influence their salary.

            And not because they have a much higher responsibility? As a CEO, it is your job to make sure a company makes a profit (unless you are a nonprofit, I guess you have some other goal you need to achieve). That is what you a pay a CEO to do. I assume you would pay more for someone who is able to turn a higher profit.

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      9 months ago

      Which was always a big fat lie. I mean just look at who was involved in getting OpenAI started. Mostly super rich tech people meeting privately to divide the market among themselves like colonial powers divided their territories.

      • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        “In 1882 I was in Vienna, where I met an American whom I had known in the States. He said: ‘Hang your chemistry and electricity! If you want to make a pile of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others’ throats with greater facility.'”

        Hiram Maxim

        I wonder if something similar happened with openAI.

        Forgot about NFTs and marketing. Invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others’ throats more efficiently.