Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)
daringfireball.net289 points by gyomu 7 hours ago
289 points by gyomu 7 hours ago
"well-known AI expert Gary Marcus"
News at Y Combinator used to be my preferred reading diversion: reading interesting technical stories, debates on political topics, learning things, my comfort food of the same topics repeating the same arguments over the span of a decade. Now it’s that but also 65% AI doomscrolling.
Greg Brockman (President of OpenAI) also said that OpenAI is around 80% close to achieving "AGI", but it was disclosed that his stake in OpenAI is worth around 30BN.
So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean? It depends on who you ask.
It appears to many to mean "A Great IPO" or "A Gigantic IPO" at this point rather than "Artificial General Intelligence" which has been clearly hijacked to mean something else.
> So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean?
No worries, there will be a startup creating "AGI Bench", >=80% means you're AGI, they will be valued $50B.
> So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean? It depends on who you ask.
AGI - Automatically Generating Income
""Artificial General Intelligence" which has been clearly hijacked to mean something else."
I mean, the goalposts shifted. The game Go used to be considered to require true AI. Passing the turing test. Scanning, analyzing and improving complex codebases largely on their own would have been considered some sort of AGI by me 6 years ago.
Now sure, we all know they lack true understanding. But it gets blurry at times what that does mean.
But I don't buy that there will be a magic point, where self improving AGI explodes towards singularity. The current approach is very, very energy and compute intense and that is unlikely to change.
Maybe the dystopian AI development will result in energy funding and advancements that actually benefit most of us. I really hope all this turns out in a net positive for humanity. If we wont get true "AGI", which we are far far away from, we at least could make some advancements in different areas.
Well, I surely hope so, but I feel less positive if that means a nuclear power plant is parked before every new rushed datacenter
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3351721/chin...
But in general I do believe AI has the potential to be a great positive for humanity on its own - if the open models stay strong and not only a few people control them.
I can see your reasoning. Unfortunately I see and experience everything wrong with AI in my daily life. People ask it what gifts to buy for their loved ones or use it as therapist substitute. Humans are not ready for this technology. A lot of us are even losing the ability to read properly (even though thats related to technology in general). It's extremely scary. The only advantage humans have is an extraordinary big brain and a pair of thumbs, we can't afford to use our brains less.
I mean, people are doing dumb shit since the beginning of times and I considered this society as messed up since way before LLMs.
And yes, humans as a whole are not even ready for cars or nuclear weapons. We build and used them anyway.
But my brain is still pretty busy and I don't think the younger generation is getting dumber because of LLMs, rather mindless consuming TikTok and co
LLMs are a also great learning tool and anyone using them should know their limits quickly. Not all do, though. That is obvious.
> So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean?
If your stake is > 30 billion seems more of a reasonable and realistic criteria to me.
That's the trick right? What do they really mean by AGI. Depending on how narrow you go, it sounds like we've already achieved it. However, if they keep saying they'll achieve it and not defining it before making such statements that determine what it is, they can keep saying it endlessly to create hype.
One key thing I've heard about AGI which I think would be the most determining factor for me is a model that learns on the fly. Which could be done one way or another, but when you consider that LLMs basically run like "ROM" files, it makes it a little complicated.
I think we need to re-imagine how LLMs are built, train, and run. But also, figure out how to drastically lower the cost of running them.
One of the random tidbits I can remember from the New Yorker Altman deep dive was Brockman being obsessed about making $1B dollars. It was memorable because I actually cringed reading it.
i always thought there were two reasons for AI interest on HN.
1. since AI has captured the imagination of capitalists and they think this is the next industrial revolution, they gotta be in it to win it. combined with the fact that i believe most people here are wealthy or at least aspirationally so, that explained half of it.
2. the other half is that AI as a tech is interesting from a mathematical and compsci point of view, tho certainly not interesting enough to justify the proportion of topics about it here.
i guess i should add a 3rd reason.
3. ycomb has a financial stake in spreading the news about how wonderful this tech is!
lolol
The only thing that should be surprising to anyone who knows about the early history of OpenAI is how little of it YC owns, given how much it leveraged YC’s credibility to get started (early employees joined an institution called “YC Research”, operating from YC’s office space). Once that stake is divided up among all the LPs and small unit holders, it’s not a huge outcome.
Also: nothing gets sustained attention on HN unless good hackers find it interesting. Our entire objective is to be the website that attracts the best hackers, serves them the most interesting content and facilitates the most interesting discussions. That can’t happen if we’re nefariously pushing a commercial agenda.
Despite not publicly moving away from what has been said about Sam*
Jessica Livingston's personal stake in OpenAI is maybe at most 0.1% or less and Paul Graham's, afaik, is 0.
So the bias doesn't seem as large as OP thinks
*https://xcancel.com/paulg/status/2041366050693173393
And "toughness, adaptability, and determination" >>> "ambition", frankly
Such suspicious phrasing lol. So you’re saying Paul Graham and his wife Jessica have 800 MILLION dollars worth of OpenAI stock, and that’s not so significant?
We're forced to decide whether 0.8B is enough to risk her credibility over, or, if it matters to us, gather more information first
What is 0.1% of a trillion? I think that's quite a large number still.
OpenAI’s last post-money valuation was less than a trillion. They’ll probably cross that point in the future, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
It was $852 billion - 0.1% of which is $852 million
Can't even buy more than a luxury yacht, few mansions, private jets and have just enough left to buy yourself an European football club.
Seems to be an unusually quiet post for something posted 3 hours ago.
My understanding is dang has said in the past they do some anti moderation(I’m sure he has a better term) for posts related to ycombinator. That is to say they moderate less and might, do not quote me here, even boost a tad. So upvoted story by a well reputed source even without many comments is likely to hang onto the front page for a bit.
You're thinking of the principle I've explained here over the years: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... - that we moderate HN less, not more, when YC or a YC-funded startup are part of the story.
"Less" doesn't mean "not at all", of course—that would be too big a loophole. But it does mean strictly less, and we stick to that, despite its various downsides, because the upside is bigger.
In the present case, it means we haven't applied any moderation downweights to this post, even though it's obviously the sort of thing we would downweight under other circumstances, since it's neither particularly substantive nor intellectually interesting (though it could be some other kind of interesting, at least to some readers).
The actual content of the post is straightforward and not particularly novel — YC has a stake in OpenAI, that creates a conflict of interest, and the New Yorker is negligent (in the informal sense) for not putting that in their piece.
It’s a sobering reminder and worthy of being on the front page on that basis alone, but I don’t see much of a discussion to be had. “Unusually quiet for a front page post” is probably where this post is meant to be.
> not particularly novel
As far as I know this is the first time anyone has publicly claimed to know, quoting insider sources, what YC's actual stake in OpenAI is.
Nothing unusual. There's not an AI company (mostly AI wrappers) on planet in which Y Combinator hasn't sprinkled their cash already.
I'd go as far to say that it's impossible at this point to form an AI company without YCombinator not investing in it.
Could someone (non-AI) summarize this? I'm sorry but I just literally don't have time to even read long posts from very reputable sources. I know I need the info but time just isn't there in my life right now.
Ronan Farrow and Andrew Marantz had a critical investigative report in The New Yorker on Sam Altman and OpenAI last month asking whether Altman could be trusted.
Paul Graham of Y-Combinator in response tweeted some positive things about Altman, emphasising that they didn't fire him as CEO of YC (though not going as far as declaring him trustworthy).
Now John Gruber of DaringFireball (an Apple blog) added context by claiming that YC owns a 0.6% stake in OpenAi, worth around $5bn, which might colour Graham's judgement.