… you mean like how most investments operate in the US? No news here, just another example of how the FTC and FCC are a joke and another example of how the govt fails to properly protect its people from bullshit, fraud, and control by corps.
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
357 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
59374 readers
7834 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Wait, do you mean that the majority stakeholder in a company would try to control it? Pickachu face
Yes, i am aware that the actual problem is that it is being done covertly and that the manoeuvring might have been to take control of the Non Profit
They're not a majority stakeholder. They invested $13b and a lot of that wasn't cash, it was just credits to use Azure.
That's more money than anyone else has invested so far, but it's only about 2 weeks revenue for Microsoft and not even close to enough to fund OpenAI.
Wether or not they're a non profit? I dunno. OpenAI's structure is pretty unusual.
As I understand, OpenAI's structure is similar to Mozilla's, so a non-profit steers a for-profit.
But there's the massive difference that OpenAI's for-profit takes on outside investors. That is where Microsoft has invested.
As such, control over the for-profit really isn't in the hands of the non-profit, because obviously, they have to satisfy whoever gives them money.
In particular, it also means that unlike in Mozilla's structure, where the for-profit is 'neutered' in that it can't pay out profits to anyone, this really isn't the case for OpenAI.
So, all in all, I really don't feel like the non-profit part of OpenAI has any real relevance.
As I understand, OpenAI’s structure is similar to Mozilla’s, so a non-profit steers a for-profit.
Right, that's my understanding too.
But there’s the massive difference that OpenAI’s for-profit takes on outside investors. That is where Microsoft has invested.
Does that matter at all? Microsoft is a for-profit business, investing in a for-profit company and hoping to make a profit. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
As such, control over the for-profit really isn’t in the hands of the non-profit, because obviously, they have to satisfy whoever gives them money.
They have to satisfy whatever terms where in the contract signed when Microsoft invested. From what I can tell, Microsoft basically just has IP rights to the software any patents. They don't have any control.
In particular, it also means that unlike in Mozilla’s structure, where the for-profit is ‘neutered’ in that it can’t pay out profits to anyone, this really isn’t the case for OpenAI.
That's not true at all. Mozilla pays about a quarter billion dollars a year to their employees for example. They absolutely can and do user their money to pay other people.
There are strict regulations on how a non-profit can spend their money, but they absolutely are allowed (and expected) to spend all of the money they have. Generally, a non-profit is required to clearly define some purpose that benefits the community somehow (it could be helping kids with cancer, or helping elderly people get to their doctor's appointments, or building a better Internet (Mozilla), or trying to create AGI that benefits all of humanity (OpenAI)). Whatever your purpose is, as long as the money is spent on that it's fine.
However, the for-profit arm of OpenAI isn't a non-profit. So it doesn't have that same limitation.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if OpenAI is legally in the clear here... but I will say that I don't see any major problems. I also don't think it would really be the end of the world if the EU declares they're a for-profit enterprise. In fact I'm not sure it would change anything at all. There's nothing wrong with running a private company. You just might have to pay a bit more tax... but since OpenAI doesn't actually make any money... they don't have to pay any tax anyway.
It's also entirely possible for them to be recognised as a non-profit in some countries but not in others. Different countries, different rules. Not a big deal.
I don’t think you can co-create a supercomputer with a company and not be deeply involved with them. Combine that with the inherent power Microsoft has because of their money, and I think it’s pretty easy to see how they could exercise control indirectly.
Microsoft sneakilu trying to achieve dominant market position and go for monopoly ? That can't be right /s
EU regulators.
Stop staring at Microsoft for 2 seconds and break Google the fuck up.
Why not both?
That's why I said only 2 seconds. The lack of regulation around LLMs is a massive issue.
deleted
It's about the EU regulators. It's notable that they don't seem to have any concerns about Google, despite Google being exponentially worse.
There's constantly ongoing investigations into Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Google_by_the_European_Union
I definitely also wish, they would restrict Google and more quickly, but them not having any concerns about Google, that's just not true.
Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Since 2010, the European Union has investigated several antitrust complaints against Google alleging abuses of its dominant position in breach of the EU's competition laws. Three complaints have resulted in formal charges against Google: those relating to Google Shopping, the Android operating system and to Google AdSense. Google has been found guilty of antitrust breaches in the three cases and has been fined over €8 billion. In 2020, the European Union has also launched a full investigation of Google's proposed acquisition of the fitness tracker and wearable health company Fitbit, under the EU Merger Regulation. The operation was eventually cleared on 17 December 2020 subject to conditions.
You know EU regulators can do multiple things at once and that investigations take time and tend to be secret until they are ready to act.
Eh they're politicians. I'm impressed if they can tie their shoes without a bribe.
EU regulators aren't politicians, they're bureaucrats. The anti-trust office in particular is special because it's practically the oldest EU institution, getting their start in the ECSC as regulators of a trade cartel, brutally cracking down on internal collusion both because presence of such practices weakens the whole and to make sure that national cartels are broken up, the very founding idea of the ECSC was to intertwine coal and steel industries so that internal war would become impossible because no individual nation actually had control over that sector.
Alphabet soup
Do we know that MS were the ones behind the ceo firing and used the employees anger to fire the board and place their own puppets?
Well, right now its just an unconfirmed theory, but I would say yes, thats exactly what happened.
Um, what? No. We know the board were behind the CEO firing, and MS was part of cleaning up the mess the board created.
Wait, OpenAI isnt subsidiary of MS?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The EC's executive vice president in charge of competition policy, Margrethe Vestager, said in the announcement that rapidly advancing AI technologies are "disruptive" and have "great potential," but to protect EU markets, a forward-looking analysis scrutinizing antitrust risks has become necessary.
Regulators are particularly keen to hear from policy experts, academics, and industry and consumer organizations who can identify "potential competition issues" stemming from tech companies partnering to develop generative AI and virtual world/metaverse systems.
The EC worries that partnerships like Microsoft and OpenAI could "result in entrenched market positions and potential harmful competition behavior that is difficult to address afterwards."
Beyond the EU, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and reportedly the US Federal Trade Commission have also launched investigations into Microsoft's OpenAI investments.
Antitrust legal experts told Reuters that authorities should act quickly to prevent "critical emerging technology" like generative AI from being "monopolized," noting that before launching a probe, the CMA will need to find evidence showing that Microsoft's influence over OpenAI materially changed after Altman's reappointment.
On Tuesday, a nonprofit consumer rights group, the Public Citizen, called for California Attorney General Robert Bonta to “investigate whether OpenAI should retain its non-profit status.”
The original article contains 760 words, the summary contains 196 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!