How this not in the front page of HN is really beyond me.
I asked ChatGPT this simple question and the responses are really commendable and a bit hilarious:
Prompt: Since OpenAI the owner of the ChatGPT has removed non-profit control of OpenAI and gave Sam Altman equity what is the more appropriate alternative name to OpenAI now?
Answers: Given the shift in OpenAI's structure from a non-profit to a more profit-oriented model, a name like "AltmanAI" could be seen as more reflective of its current leadership and business model. Alternatively, something like "ProfitAI" or "EquityAI" could highlight the focus on profitability and equity distribution, though these might come across as blunt or satirical.
However, if the goal is to preserve a sense of innovation and artificial intelligence leadership while reflecting the new profit-driven focus, names like "InnovativeAI" or "EnterpriseAI" could also work. These names could better align with the organization's current direction while maintaining a forward-thinking brand identity.
I also find it curious if not distressing that this wasn’t pinned at #1 all day. To be clear: I’m quite sure that @dang is deeply committed to running a clean shop on moderation.
But whether something highly unlikely and slightly sensational like a finger on the scales, or the far more likely and utter banal explanation that people in vast numbers see their fates as intertwined with the status quo, the result is the same: on some deep institutional level HN is never going to hold Altman to account.
So the question becomes, what authority handles the cases the community can’t? On paper that’s regulators and legislators. Those folks ostensible and actual missions aren’t identical, and differ more with time, but they intersect at “prevent would-be autocrats being so brazen as to provoke de facto revolt”.
The public doesn’t hate Big Tech generally and its sociopath fringe specifically enough to make it a true wedge issue yet, but it’s trending that way.
I’d go so far as to say that most almost anyone breathing the Bay air isn’t capable of truly internalizing how deeply the general public loathes the modern Valley machine: it’s dramatically more than Wall St at any time.
It’s getting even trickier than usual to predict which historical social norms are still bright lines, but “profiting personally via using a charity as a vehicle for fraud” is still putting popular people in prison with bipartisan support.
And Altman isn’t popular even here. He’s feared here, but loved almost nowhere.
I know. When I said he’s feared here I didn’t mean by everyone, and by me never.
It sounds like you also refuse to live in fear of the goblin child of pg’s overconfidence in the joint character estimation of himself and Jessica and pg’s sloppy personal entanglements writ large as de facto public policy.
Almost no one thinks this is ok. A plurality if not a majority is still willing to co-sign because of various pressures.
A lot of very smart people acting in good faith had that investment in the benefit of the doubt betrayed, and for an eminently relatable reason: historically trustworthy figures stopped declaring their conflicts of interest at some point and thereby became exploiters of those who respected their judgement.
The real test is who carries on now that the lupine avarice has been utterly unmasked.
That's just a function of the HN community having a range of opinions on every topic. "Manufacture consent" is too sledgehammer a phrase for the normal process of people discussing things.
