this post was submitted on 06 May 2025
255 points (96.4% liked)

Technology

69772 readers
4407 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 10 points 4 hours ago

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

[–] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

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

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 46 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 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 102 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

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!

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 8 points 7 hours ago

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

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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 7 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 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.

[–] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 15 points 13 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 8 points 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 107 points 1 day ago (3 children)

“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 5 points 13 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.

[–] dzso@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

This doesn't sound like a nonprofit.

[–] NoSpotOfGround@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

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 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 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.

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

what does the last shareholder get?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory

Once the bubble pops they’ll rugpull the same way they do crypto. Either that or it will grow so large that they convince someone to aquire them wholesale

[–] monogram@feddit.nl 4 points 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 0 points 1 day ago

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

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So they're slowly admitting genAI is unprofitable...

[–] doodledup@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Their current structure is still profit-oriented. You should read the article maybe.

[–] Loduz_247@lemmy.world 18 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

The structure of OpenAI is quite strange and curious.

[–] PushButton@lemmy.world 7 points 9 hours ago

Metroid layout.

GPT is the boss located left, the final boss is called Profit, and it's at the bottom...

[–] VintageGenious@sh.itjust.works 3 points 16 hours ago

Probably an emergent structure out of a chain of thought

[–] psmgx@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"we can make enough money without it"

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

"We lose value on every unit, but make it up through volume."

[–] mm_maybe@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago

Upvoted for classic 24 hour party people reference

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago

Great news.