Not all cash is fungible for CapEx. For instance, much of that might hypothetically be held in an offshore account. Building a datacenter with it would trigger unfavorable VAT or sales tax or something... Hypothetically...
High cap companies use debt for this: bank loan is located in the market where it's needed most, and the debt is serviced by interest earned from securities in other markets. The net taxes are a small percent (think 3%) relative to simply transferring funds within the company. Yes, this is the low effective tax rate the EU is quite upset about.
Other reasons for not touching their holdings usually have a similar explanation. The securities are fungible for accounting purposes but not fungible enough for actual day-to-day operations. Result: securities get "stranded" and the large company grows a hedge fund appendage.
Yeah, for profitable companies, debt is a strategic tool not a desperate act. It more about orchestrating around the money that is soft locked somewhere else.
As far as Brockman account of the past goes, there's also his personal diary which was made public as a part of that lawsuit by Musk. Includes for example the line: "Financially what will take me to $1B?". BTW, if you don't know, Musk lost it because he filed too late, lol.
What about stealing 12 million books of copyrighted human culture, at massive scale, and then enclosing the value created inside proprietary, investor-backed systems? Something wrong with that?
What happens if you go tomorrow, downtown San Francisco, and leave a bookstore with one book without paying?
"Behind every great fortune there is a crime"
- Honoré de Balzac
I think there might be a difference between “I’m violating copyright law to enjoy a work of art” and “I’m violating copyright law on a global, species-wide scale to create a trillion dollar company and enrich myself.” Maybe you can argue the former is wrong but there’s no way it’s equivalent to the latter.
I don't think reading books (whether by human or by machine) is copyright infringement.
I think that attaining books that are still under copyright by downloading a pirate torrent is wrong.
I think a machine reading those books by borrowing them from a public library is fine.
I think copyright holders restricting their books from being in a public library is just as wrong as downloading a pirated copy.
I think deliberately reproducing a copyrighted book is wrong, but the infringement is by the person who did that, not by the person who built a tool which can incidentally be used for that.
Even though the founders of OpenAI are not exactly someone you'd root for, comparisons to theft are silly.
By that token it would be illegal to go into a library, read a book, and actually remember what was in it. Except in this case the reader is a robot.
LLMs are such a fundamentally different thing that existing laws don't really make sense. Wait! Put the pitchfork down! I know, I know, stealing is stealing, and OpenAI founders are slimy. But what about derivative works? Why is a human making a hip-hop track allowed to sample, and a robot is not? Again, LLMs are such a fundamentally different thing that existing laws don't really make sense.
It's actually surprising in retrospect that nobody did this sooner. Even back in the 80s books about computers would gush about how a computer has enough memory to store an entire library's worth of books. It's just that someone finally figured out how to put an index on it.
Where I agree: given that this is basically the sum of all humanity's knowledge, the company should have been a non-profit. It was a non-profit. And then greed won.
There are a lot of things that are fine individually that are extremely problematic at scale. Like "reading a book" vs "ingesting all the books and art that ever existed into a plagiarism machine"
If they illegally pirated books, i.e. downloading pdfs. thats illegal and piracy by no other name. If any of us do it, it's called pirating, why are you being disingenuous and saying it's not theft when a company does it?
Oh and by the way, their employee got murdered who was testified to speak at a hearing about copyright.
and that murderee's mom is publically resentful against and tweets anti-sam Altman content regularly. It tells me that founder Altman has clearly not demonstrated proper empathy, sympathy or repaired what should be an emotional easy case of delivering to the mom whatever she needs for her peace (or maybe he's actually guilty of complicit in crimes).
I'm curious what you're writing in your diary that's worse than blatantly admitting to fraud of this scale. He publicly misled people about OpenAI's "mission" as a nonprofit, while seeking to enrich himself to the tune of $1 billion(!!!) dollars.
Also, his entire diary was not in fact made public. The attorneys only quoted the parts that were relevant to the case, which pertained to OpenAI's transition from non-profit.
How about wiping out an entire civilization? Not even necessary to hide this thought in your diary if you have enough power. I've seen today - in fact any day of this year - much worse things than his diary thoughts.
I recall a comment that Sam was talking about selling AGI to the highest bidder, including hostile foreign governments, so not literally planning to destroy civilization but definitely selling it out.
And for any equivalencies of the current US regime and Russia and China, yes, that's a fair point but the implication is that they'd be selling to our enemies.
Well, gee. When you put it like that, Hitler existed, so really we can't fault anybody for anything short of orchestrating the genocide of 12 million people.
By your logic you could argue that if anybody on this planet starves to death then Americans can be blamed and ‘engineered it’, since they had the economic means to prevent it. You’re essentially trying to argue that inaction is a positive act, which it is not as a matter of logic and law universally.
Your logic is laughable on its face, obviously.
Americans have no more duty to look after non-Americans than anybody else.
If I provide cancer drugs to someone, and then suddenly stop, am I to blame for them dying of cancer? That doesn't imply that I have a moral duty to provide the drugs. But if I am providing them and then withdraw them, then there is some responsibility on my part?
>>You’re essentially trying to argue that inaction is a positive act
You've assumed I have a certain position then argue against it, not against what I actually said.
Unilateral voluntary foreign aid is not in any way analogous to medical care that creates strict legal obligations when the doctor-patient relationship commences.
I wouldn’t want. I have enough. Not everyone is wanting money.
But it is not the point. The point is, when you take high moral ground and talk about bug problems to help humanity, and then your own diary exposes you as avaricious simpleton, the whole high moral ground crumbles. And you expose yourself as another grifter.
That’s what happened to Brockman. Although smart people could see these qualities in altman, brockman etcetera way before that happened
Why can't I want both earning 1B and do good things for the world? Unless his diary directly contradicts what he has said in public (like "I don't care about money"), I see zero moral issues here.
> The point is, when you take high moral ground and talk about bug problems to help humanity, and then your own diary exposes you as avaricious simpleton, the whole high moral ground crumbles. And you expose yourself as another grifter.
Unfortunately, this is now 90% of this space and it is now full of grifters which was not the case in 2010.
In the case of OpenAI, there were less grifters and they were dormant in 2016 and many were exposed in 2023 when Sam was fired and rehired afterwards and most of them infiltrated the company after 2023.
In 10 years time, after this upcoming financial crash, you will hear some of the former-employees after 2023 admitting that they were part of the grift and were never interested in AI in the first place.
"OpenAI was nothing without its people" except only if it meant getting a mansion or a yacht for the benefit of h̶u̶m̶a̶n̶i̶t̶y̶ themselves.
There’s nothing wrong or strange about aspiring to be a billionaire but writing about it in your diary like a hormonal teen girl reading fairy tales is a bad look.
It’s also difficult to take people seriously if they only care about money or, in Altman’s case, power. Single minded obsessiveness about these sorts of things tends to render people intellectually dishonest by definition.
Do you understand the kind of self-absorbed asshole you have to be, to seriously write in your diary, what do I need to do, to have wealth equal to the GDP of the Solomon Islands or the Seychelles? :-)
Every billionaire is a policy failure. It's not a question of equity, the issue is that no one human should be that powerful. It's very obvious that its leading to the US's rather quick and colorful decline. A small cohort of very powerful people are moving elections and policy to enrich themselves, everyone else be damned.
Even assuming all of this is true, nothing you've said means it's wrong to want a billion dollars. As described, your issue is with the system that makes it possible to get it.
I would be a billionaire for about 5 minutes because I'd spend 95% of it making the lives of others better and still have enough left over that neither me nor any of my immediate family ever has to work again instead of hoarding it like the monsters who end up actually having a billion dollars.
What is the point of your comment? It is hard for me to read it in another way than "I am very virtuous", which might be true (well done you!) but usually isn't a thing people post about themselves in a discussion forum...
> There is nothing wrong with wanting 1B. Anybody who said they wouldn't want it is lying.
You said:
> I'd spend 95% of it making the lives of others better
Again, well done you. And... I don't think that's a counter example? Being this virtuous, wouldn't you love to give away a billion? Wouldn't you enjoy it very much? You could write comments about it and people would upvote you!
I do not want a billion dollars, there is no ethical way to get a billion dollars. If I accidentally had a billion dollars I would get rid of the billion dollars as quickly as possible.
The op thinks that I, as well as most of the other responses to them, are liars
> there is no ethical way to get a billion dollars.
I don't buy that at all. One ethical way is to marry someone random who later becomes a billionnaire. Another is to eg create Bitcoin. And I suspect there are ethical ways to create a business that earns a whole lot of money.
What unethical things did Yvon Chouinard do to get his billions? Chuck Feeney? What about Mackenzie Scott (formerly Bezos)? Hansjörg Wyss? Craig Newmark of Craigslist?
Regardless of what else they did, they hoarded enough wealth to live hundreds of lifetime without ever wanting for anything while there are people on this planet who are starving, homeless, or can't afford basic medical care.
Being a billionaire itself is unethical. They are excessively greedy to the point of evil. If they weren't they would have stopped hoarding wealth hundreds of millions of dollars sooner.
If I had enough food to feed a hundred thousand people for the rest of their lives, more than anyone could ever eat in thousands of lifetimes, and I kept hoarding more and more food while people were starving you would ask what the fuck is wrong with me, there's no way I'll ever need all that food. I would rightly be called obsessive, greedy, and a sociopath. Add one layer of abstraction and we hold these monsters up as heroes.
- Yvon Chouinard said he "didn't drive Lexuses". Yes he was a billionnaire, but he lived a simple life, and his net worth was tied in the stock of the company. He has since given most of it away.
- Mackenzie Bezos gave away $26 billion, more than half of her net worth, in the past 6 years. I'm sure she'll continue.
It's not exactly easy to spend so much money _meaningfully_. "Giving it away" sounds simple, but really it's a lot of hard work.
You seem extremely attached to your point of view that all the billionnaires are bad people and that you're a good person. I have a negative visceral reaction to people who loudly proclaim their own moral superiority. I don't think all the billionnaires are that bad, and tbh I have trouble believing you're such good a person. How much have you given to charity?
I haven't said anything about my own morality other than that I don't want a billion dollars.
If you really want to know, I give away more than 10% of my income every year to charity. In just the past decade I've given away about 20% of my net worth, and I'm not even close to set for life. That's more than all but a few billionaires will give away in their lifetimes, and I promise you that I need that 20% much more than any billionaire needs 90% of theirs. If I lose my job I'm fucked, if they never make another dollar they can live thousands of lifetimes without changing their standard of living in any meaningful way.
Does that make me a good person? No.
It absolutely makes them bad people though.
Giving away money doesn't make you a good person, but hoarding it makes you a bad person.
Nonsense. What the hell would you do with 1B? Give it to charities maybe. Maybe set up an investment where dividends are paid to charity. Running out of ideas
Set up a nice investment vehicle with maybe 400m so I can get 1.6m in dividends a year which would be better enough to comfortably travel the world, have a private chef, someone who organized travel so I don't have to..
A nice 12 person yacht on the Mediterranean is 400k eur for 2 weeks (with staff) so I'd realize it's not enough and invest the rest so I could get comfy.
Along the way help friends and family, pay off mortgages, usually good stuff.
What's the point of that? That sounds like the most boring life. You want to rot away on a yacht? Private chef? Are you kidding?
Help family? Sure, although you don't need that much money for that. Friends? Ehh not very smart, just think about the changes in the friendships' authenticity.
Private chef, absolutely. Like some people rot away managing Linux as a desktop or putting together 3D printers instead of buying one that works and using a Mac, I enjoy food.
You've run out of ideas already? Try harder!
What charities? Why? How much, to which ones? How involved with those charities are you going to be? What dent in history are you going to make with that billion? With or without your name attached. Build housing, cure cancer, feed the hungry, buy this simulator https://www.1940airterminal.org/news/liquidation-of-simulato...
I could be wrong but I think you could get started with all of that with a fraction of $1B.
Sure there is leisure and entertainment but if you want to use it to do something meaningful, with only 24 hours in a day you'll probably have much more money than time to use it well.
On the other hand 1B is really an arbitrary choice of number, so I think the reason he would choose this specific number definitely has more to do with arbitrary reasons (class, status), perhaps subconciously.
Personally I don't agree with the parent that everyone wants that much money. I think I can safely say not only am I content with much less but I also don't ever want to have the responsibility of having to manage that. Though I'm already saying that from a place of privilege where I don't need to worry about survival.
Furthermore, a lot of money almost certainly places you in an outlier group where normal laws and rights as formulated by humans don't apply the same. Assuming everyone has some empathy and sense of justice/righteousness, that should make them intrinsically not want to be in that group.
Completely missing the other costs associated with any of these things. If money was enough to “feed the hungry” Musk or Gates would have already done it. The real problem is systemic injustice, like governments stealing foreign aid that’s meant to go to the poor. Money can’t always solve these.
Time is more valuable than money and unless you have tons of time and space that simulator is just an expensive paperweight.
My point was that there isn't anything I could do with that money, and neither can the vast majority of people in the world. So I would immediately try to pass it on to people who have better use for it
Wishing for 1B is completely nonsensical if you understand what kind of money that is.
If anything less than $1B isn't enough then it is never enough. $1B is the new $100M thanks to ongoing currency debasement.
Also, there is something called "taxes" which is what makes anyone who has millions or billions to want even more money and the IRS will still come after you anywhere in the world.
Otherwise they have to renounce their citizenship and move to a tax haven.
It would make memory-poor phones more viable. Like why can't we have a 512MB, or even 256MB RAM phone. Although I doubt that the software effort would be cheaper than just buying the extra RAM. It's definitely much more uncertain.
The OpenMoko Freerunner only had 128MB RAM, it was able to run a Linux desktop of the time, Englightenment/E16. There were lots of apps for it too. IIRC the cut down QtMoko distro ran best though.
My pet theory is that I don't think all humans are conscious (in other words, some perfectly cognitively normal-seeming people are just automatons without an inner experience, like plants or LLMs). Mainly motivated by the fact that a lot of people report not having an inner monologue, and other little hints that I've picked up over the years.
The "inner experience" might be totally optional to fitness, like green eyes.
Not really. Solipsism means only you're (certain to be) conscious. It's an epistemological thing.
I'm making a purely biological conjecture motivated by some observations. I believe some humans are definitely conscious (including of course myself, if you take my word), but that some might not be. The conscious experience may just be a phenotypic variant, like having blue eyes, eidetic memory or dyslexia.
Consider also some recent research that shows that our consciousness is only observational and gives us an illusion of control. The actual decision-making is done a split second before we perceive to have done it. That means it might be totally optional.
Consider also that we know some living creatures to definitely not have a mind for example plants, and some creatures deemed highly unlikely to have a mind such as fish and insects. And yet they "operate" just fine. Somewhere in ecology there's a boundary and yet it's not apparent just by observing behavior.
I have a corollary hypothesis which is that only young people are actually conscious. One day you go to bed and your mind never wakes up, but your body keeps on living the automaton till you actually die.
(also if you're wondering, I don't think the boundary is along racial lines)
The relation of consciousness and being in control is interesting. I'm not so sure about the decision-making experiments - maybe they just measured latency in the communication layers?
I think being in control is a rare thing. It's hard to change even the smallest habits - the default result is failure - but sometimes it's possible. The only thing that seems to work reliably is subconscious manipulation of people using propaganda and repetition. That's for me the main reason to believe that at least 90% of people don't have active functional consciousness in their loop.
Decisions of Plants work in different time scales, so they're hard to perceive, but I don't think they work that different - it all boils down to maximising some gain-function using some chemistry for memory.
Your theory about going automaton is interesting. I've seen intelligent persons that communicated very well going "crazy". (I think women do that a lot) - like a looping LLM. And later they came back to normal - but since then I have some doubts about their internal state...
> I have a corollary hypothesis which is that only young people are actually conscious. One day you go to bed and your mind never wakes up, but your body keeps on living the automaton till you actually die.
Thank you for a new existential fear unlocked. Why do you believe this?
>Consider also some recent research that shows that our consciousness is only observational and gives us an illusion of control.
That's fine. Observation is the function of consciousness, and there's nothing wrong with consciousness being observational, it's expected to be observational, because observation is what consciousness does. Control is done by the decision making process, not by consciousness.
One step further is to ask how conscious your mind actually is. There is a lot happening on autopilot - and everybody usually checks out for a few hours at night. Maybe consciousness is a rare temporary thing.
I think evidence suggests that humans aren't conscious most of the time. So it wouldn't surprise me if 95% of the time people are just stochastic parrots. But maybe that number is even close or equal to 100%.
Intellectually a lot of humans perform worse than LLMs and a lot of people (most of them) are completely unable to process abstract concepts and basic logic at all. Can those people truly be called conscious? Is consciousness worth something without the ability to reason?
If I knew precisely which definition of consciousness you are testing against your own experience I would understand your point and I would like to. Can you say what it is that you are sure you are not?
I always wonder why ECT doesn't get more press. It very very often works on depression (and bipolar disorder, catatonia; anything affective-related really), although the effects may wane over time when the treatment is discontinued. Memory loss is one of the side effects, and it could actually be beneficial here.
This is nuts. Bringing ECT into the discussion of a novel psychedelic medicine.
Totally different ballparks. Well-established results vs. very little formal research.
Have you had ECT, or do you know anyone who has? It's a last resort for horrible depression and not much else. It has huge risks, and while it does often make these people's lives manageable, it shouldn't be in the same discussion as a medication that's been out of discussion for political reasons.
I do wonder how many more people would be open to ECT if instead of using the electrical pulse we would give people some drug that causes a brief seizure. Right after the anesthesia, of course, just like now - but there's no electricity involved. I don't even know if such a safe drug exists.
My point exactly. I am not saying psychedelics do not help people, they clearly help some people with some problems. But the balance of research and general interest is not proportional to how promising both paths already look. For example, which treatments are safer long term? It's unclear. At the same time it's clear that there can be unwanted long term side effects. In one very particular case, pregnant women that unfortunately do need something, we already know from physics and data on anesthesia that ECT is the better choice.
Sorry if I find that things like https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39804212/ existing in checks 2025 repulsive. Especially when those are the same arguments put forward for lobotomies. If somebody is capable of _ELECTING_ ECT, fine. But don't pretend that dosing somebody unconcious with benzos so they Can't seize, and reducing shock duration and intensity so theres no skin burning makes intentionaly brain damaging somebody to fit in with society any less horifying. If you don't like that example- theres plenty more for things like dementia among the elderly. Especially if they're in a retirement facility.
As for TCMS? It works- if you can find a place that's not a farm.
> So no, ”very often works on depression” is not a characterization I would use.
I'm (genuinely) sorry about your friend, and I don't deny that it's worth sharing these anecdotes. But a single anecdote comes nowhere near refuting the claim that ECT very often works on depression.
The current state of scientific knowledge seems to be that it does very often "work", at least as a fast-acting short-term treatment for very severe depression.
OpenClaw has surprisingly few "dumb" bugs. Is it as stable and secure as the Linux kernel? God no, obviously not. But it has never just crashed for me, for example. Bugs are of the type "X with Y and Z disabled and T turned on - doesn't work", where you're likely one of a few people that have ever tried this combination. Not to mention it can then debug itself and file a bug report, with a bugfix - if you give it a GitHub token.
I run it in a firewalled VM and am very conscious about any tokens I give it access to - so far for all I know this was unnecessary.
PS. for me the core feature of OpenClaw isn't the cron, though that is nice. It's the memory and instant extensibility. Like it takes 5-15 minutes to add an SSH tool where all agent requests go through a manual review, together with a good auto loaded description that just works in all future sessions.
For the few weeks in which I’ve been using it, it has brought down the Raspberry Pi it’s running on several times with extreme resource hogging, local history/memory search is broken due to a trivial bug for which all issues are auto-closed by bits, and it has changed its configuration standards a handful of times in a way that broke my instant messaging access to it, just to name a few gripes.
This is clearly an implementation and not a conceptual issue, as I had none of these issues using the same model with Hermes, for example.
Doubt it. LLMs will always be more expensive per-token than compilers, and high level languages need fewer tokens than machine code. Also, type systems, warnings, overlap with natural language in names - those are very useful.
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001652044/0...
I guess they don't want to burn it down to $40B?
reply