Chapter 1: Understanding Brand Promises

Purchasing your first home often teaches invaluable lessons. For instance, I discovered that there are significant principal-agent issues with realtors, which are heightened by their incentive structures. I also realized that the language in disclosure statements can be crafted in ways that obscure the reality of what happens in your basement during heavy rain. Furthermore, the origin of a neighborhood's name can reveal its true character. Take, for example, my local area called 'Sunnyside.' If this name originated from the indigenous people, it likely reflects a sunny disposition. However, if it was assigned by the real estate market, you can bet it's shrouded in fog. [spoiler alert: it's foggy here]

This reflection resurfaces whenever I hear the name of a company. Was it chosen because it encapsulates a genuine commitment to its mission? Is it a guiding principle for employees, reminding them of their representation of the organization? Or is it merely a facade, something that sounds reassuring but lacks substance—akin to a plastic flower in lieu of a real bloom?

Every time the term “OpenAI” comes up, I find myself pondering this. Nowadays, OpenAI is in the spotlight more than ever! The technological innovations released by this group have been some of the most thrilling and transformative experiences in our field for years. I commend them for their rapid advancement towards 'general availability,' although one might speculate that their usage data serves as its own protective barrier. Their contributions have made it into my personal Top 10 list of “isn’t software incredible” moments. Yet, I can't help but pause and question the meaning behind their name.

What does ‘Open’ signify in this context? In their 2015 introductory blog post, the team stated:

We aspire to evolve OpenAI into a prominent institution. As a non-profit, our mission is to generate value for everyone rather than just shareholders. We will strongly encourage researchers to publish their findings, whether as academic papers, blog entries, or source code, and any patents we hold will be shared publicly. We aim to collaborate openly with various institutions and anticipate partnerships with companies to research and implement new technologies.

I assume 'Open' was intended as a counterpoint to a potential future dominated by corporations like Google or Apple, suggesting that a fundamentally different structure was essential for this noble ambition. However, just three years later, the organization transitioned to a for-profit model, albeit with capped returns for investors (100x cap, gulp). The justification was that the high costs of development—particularly regarding talent and computational resources—would require substantial financial backing to achieve their technological aspirations.

Chapter 2: The Role of Venture Capital

Prominent investors like Sequoia and Khosla, among others, eagerly joined in. This raised my initial eyebrows. While I believe it is possible to balance profitability with social good, I have rarely encountered a multibillion-dollar venture capitalist willing to prioritize 'good' over 'well,' especially when hundreds of millions—or even billions—are at stake. Despite voting structures (which I know are closely held within the nonprofit Board), how can the influence of a few venture capitalists be mitigated within this organization? After all, the company you keep often shapes your actions, right? Can a shift to a venture-backed profit model genuinely embody 'Openness'? Is this an innovative approach or merely a new iteration of the FAANG model?

Furthermore, there are critical decisions to be made regarding their technology and financial resources. OpenAI recently led a $23 million round in an AI-powered note-taking application through a startup fund backed by Microsoft and possibly other sources. Naturally, they want to encourage startups to experiment with their technology, pushing the boundaries of use cases and gathering feedback from the developer community. Yet, does investing in startups as a lead investor truly align with the concept of being 'Open'? How does this resonate with other note-taking applications? (I am not an investor in anything related to OpenAI or Mem, nor have I sought to invest in either, although I did encounter Mem early on and found the team amiable.)

I have met Sam Altman on a couple of occasions, and he clearly possesses a deep curiosity about future equitable distribution methods (such as Universal Basic Income). Perhaps that is why I hold such high expectations for this initiative and am scrutinizing them closely. OpenAI seems to be excelling in the AI aspect of its name, and they have the opportunity to match that with the 'Open' component—setting new benchmarks for how an organization can innovate while also fostering inclusive outcomes.

In this video, titled "OpenAI's Lightcap on Business Applications for AI," we explore the implications of AI for various industries and how OpenAI is positioning itself to lead this charge.

The second video, "Ilya Dreams of AGI | Foundering: The OpenAI Story," delves into the vision behind OpenAI and its aspirations for artificial general intelligence.