It’s a common pattern for upstarts to embrace openness as a way to differentiate and gain a foothold then become progressively less open once they get bigger. Android is a great example.

That’s how it turned out, but IIRC at the time of OpenAI’s founding, “AI” was search and RL which Google and deep mind were dominating, and self driving, which Waymo was leading. And OpenAI was conceptualized as a research org to compete. A lot has changed and OpenAI has been good at seeing around those corners.

I think that Google didn't see the business case in that generation of models, and also saw significant safety concerns. If AI had been delayed by... 5 years... would the world really be a worse place?

Yes - less exciting! But worse?

That was actually Character.ai's founding story. Two researchers at Google that were frustrated by a lack of resources and the inability to launch an LLM based chatbot. The founders are now back at Google. OpenAI was founded based on fears that Google would completely own AI in the future.

Elon Musk specifically gave OAI $150M early on because of the risk of Google being the only Corp that has AGI or super-intelligence. These emails were part of the record in the lawsuit.

> How about hundreds of thousands of factory workers that are being subjected to inhumane conditions to assemble iPhones each year?

That would be bad if it happened, which is why it doesn't happen. Working in a factory isn't an inhumane condition.

I dont think your comment justifies calling out any form of simplistic view. It doesnt make sense. All the big players are bad. They"re companies, their one and only purpose is to make money and they will do whatever it takes to do it. Most of which does not serve human kind.

It seems okay to me to be upset with the system and also point out the specific wrongs of companies in the right context. I actually think that's probably most effective. The person above specifically singled out Google as a reply to a comment praising the company, which seems reasonable enough. I guess you could get into whether it's a proportional response; the praise wasn't that high and also exists within the context of the system as you point out. Still, their reply doesn't necessarily indicate that they're not upset with all companies or the system.

Yes, we're absolutely holding Apple accountable for outsourcing jobs, degrading the US markets, using slave and child labor, laundering cobalt from illegal "artisanal" mines in the DRC, and whitewashing what they do by using corporate layering and shady deals to put themselves at sufficient degrees of separation from problematic labor and sources to do good PR, but not actually decoupling at all.

I also hold Americans and western consumers are responsible for simply allowing that to happen. As long as the human rights abuses and corruption are 3 or 4 degrees of separation from the retailer, people seem to be perfectly OK with chattel slavery and child labor and indentured servitude and all the human suffering that sits at the base of all our wonderful technology and cheap consumer goods.

If we want to have things like minimum wage and workers rights and environmental protections, then we should mandate adherence to those standards globally. If you want to sell products in the US, the entire supply chain has to conform to US labor and manufacturing and environmental standards. If those standards aren't practical, then they should be tossed out - the US shouldn't be doing performative virtue signalling as law, incentivizing companies to outsource and engage in race to the bottom exploitation of labor and resources in other countries. We should also have tariffs and import/export taxes that allow competitive free trade. It's insane that it's cheaper to ship raw materials for a car to a country in southeast asia, have it refined and manufactured into a car, and then shipped back into the US, than to simply have it mined, refined, and manufactured locally.

The ethics and economics of America are fucking dumb, but it's the mega-corps, donor class, and uniparty establishment politicians that keep it that way.

Apple and Google are inhuman, autonomous entities that have effectively escaped the control and direction of any given human decision tree. Any CEO or person in power that tried to significantly reform the ethics or economics internally would be ousted and memory-holed faster than you can light a cigar with a hundred dollar bill. We need term limits, no more corporation people, money out of politics, and an overhaul, or we're going to be doing the same old kabuki show right up until the collapse or AI takeover.

And yeah, you can single out Google for their misdeeds. They, in particular, are responsible for the adtech surveillance ecosystem and lack of any viable alternatives by way of their constant campaign of enshittification of everything, quashing competition, and giving NGOs, intelligence agencies, and government departments access to the controls of censorship and suppression of political opposition.

I haven't and won't use Google AI for anything, ever, because of any of the big labs, they are most likely and best positioned to engage in the worst and most damaging abuse possible, be it manipulation, invasion of privacy, or casual violation of civil rights at the behest of bureaucratic tyrants.

If it's not illegal, they'll do it. If it's illegal, they'll only do it if it doesn't cost more than they can profit. If they profit, even after getting caught and fined and taking a PR hit, they'll do it, because "number go up" is the only meaningful metric.

The only way out is principled regulation, a digital bill of rights, and campaign finance reform. There's probably no way out.

Yep, it's hard to believe it exists for free and with not a lot of ads when you have a good ad blocker... though the content creator's ads are inescapable, which I think is ok since they're making a little money in exchange for what, your little inconvenience for 1 minute or so - if you're not skipping the ad, which you aren't, right??) - after which you can watch some really good content. The history channels on YT are amazing, maybe world changing - they get people to learn history and actually enjoy it. Same with some match channels like 3brown1blue which are just outstanding, and many more.

> People love getting their content for free and that's what Google does.

They are forcing a payment method on us. It's basically like they have their hand in our pockets.

I don't understand your logic, it seems like victim blaming. Using the internet and pointing out that targeted advertising has a negative effect on society is not "having it both ways".

Also, HN is by definition algorithmic content and social media, in your mind what do you think it is?

Why should the collective of voters be any more of a moral entity than the collective of people who make up a corporation (which you may include its shareholders in if you want)?

It’s perfectly valid to criticize corporations for their actions, regardless of the regulatory environment.

Why are you directing the statement that "[Corporations are] not a moral entity" at me instead of the parent poster claiming that "[Google has] been the great balancing force (often for good) in the industry."? Saying that Google is a force "for good" is a claim by them that corporations can be moral entities; I agree with you that they aren't.

Ads. Beneficial to the user.

Most of the time, you need to pick one. Modern advertising is not based on finding the item with the most utility for the user - which means they are aimed at manipulating the user's behaviour in one way or another.

But there's also plenty that fail, it's just that you won't know about those.

I don't think what you're saying proves that the companies that were acquired couldn't have done that themselves.