There will always be an incentive to scale data centers. Better algorithms just mean more bang per gpu, not that “well, that’s enough now, we’ve done it”.
In 2023 I stayed in a capsule hotel in Bilbao. There I was told at check in that no talking or loudspeakers of any kind is allow in the capsules. That can only be done in the lounge area.
I spent 3 nights and got much better sleep than I would have at a hostel.
Could there be a motif unrelated to ICE ? That Home Depot does not like that day labourers are loitering and approaching customers entering and leaving the store.
I don't understand why you are challenging me here?
Isn't your question exactly that addressed by the (admittedly too long) article? That the graph Paul Graham presented proving the dominance of inheritance wasn't based on any science or data?
There are many studies of twins that try to determine if genes influence intelligence.
Some look at twins who are raised together. One [1] concludes that "MZ (identical) twins differ on average by 6 IQ points, while DZ (fraternal) twins differ on average by 10 IQ points".
Yes? I mentioned them because the article was about a bunch of studies? I was asking the poster why you would not be interested in the validity of such studies and just decide that "common sense" was enough to make a decision?
The question was asked with genuine curiosity as this forum is mostly filled with people who appreciate science and empiricism. And I was hoping there could be a reasonable discussion.
But I'm out. An interesting discussion should be possible here purely based on data and statistics but clearly - from the downvotes - that I've stepped into some toxic American identity politic minefield.
I learned quite a time ago that it's risky to raise certain scientific subjects with USAians including my US relatives: biological evolution, the science of climate change, renewable energy or justifications for gun control - without the conversation getting emotional and heated. But I still find it weird.
The article only asks the question of scientists have data to conclude that IQ is inherited. The author is only saying that there are so many problems with the little data we have, that he cannot rule out correlation without causation.
Non-profits are literally tax-exempt. OAI spent 10 years being tax-exempt in exchange for doing work that fully benefits the public. Now that work, 10 years of tax exempt work, is being handed over to a taxable outfit, a for-profit organization. If the result of 10 years of tax-exempt efforts get handed to a for-profit company, the taxes that were never paid should be because the public benefit that got them the tax benefit wasn't fulfilled, in fact it was stolen and handed to ultra-wealthy capitalists.
You mean the results that a few other companies almost instantly copied and productive themselves once the way to do it was discovered? There is no moat around LLMs.
All the sources I can find say that the revenue of ChatGPT was through the for-profit division, and that they’ve been paying taxes on all their revenue.
Is there some other tax that they’ve avoided paying?
It doesnt matter what kind of tax they didnt pay. They SHOULD pay tax. Otherwise this makes it a loophole for private companies to dump research & development costs on the taxpayer but reap all the profits.
Everything of their restructuring was signed off on by multiple states’ attorneys general. And their for-profit entity pays taxes like any other company.
Making them pay tax on stuff they did while a non-profit is making up laws on the fly - a strong, rule-of-law-based system is critical for the US to function properly.
You can’t just arbitrarily make decisions based on what you think should happen because it’s fair or unfair.
If you want OpenAI to pay back taxes, you need to change the laws first.
The issue is not the laws. The issue is that OpenAI mislead officials and externalized costs on the taxpayer.The extent to which this happened should be looked into by professionals.
It's not about changing the laws, it's about enforcing the ones we have fairly. Too many orgs and companies buy politicians, and now ballrooms for them
Income taxes are not the only tax non-profits are exempted from. Sales and property taxes are others, depending on jurisdiction, California being one such state. I am not familiar if OpenAI-NP has been exempted from these
The money they received was tax deductible for the people who “donated it”. They money should have been taxed as income for either the earner or OpenAI.
I'd be curious if people were actually writing off their OpenAI bills as donations. That would be a big number for the enterprise deals, if they qualify as a donation
The AI researchers who joined and worked for less money than they would have been paid by a big tech company because they thought it was the right thing to do.
reply