Public research. The only reason it went this way is because it is run by people who have a singular goal in their mind: see the number in their bank account get one more zero. I'm sure Sam Altman loves AI, but ultimately, it's not him working on it, he just sees it as a way to make more money. To paraphrase someone else, don't make the mistake of anthropomorphizing VCs.
An equally talented team of researchers and engineers (which, you know, we could actually pay well if the money wasn't being concentrated in these billionaires) could make ChatGPT, Bard or anything else. Hell, they could even make it something useful. This technology is too important to be left in the hands of a few.
OpenAI's existence doesn't stop any government funding equivalent research.
> (which, you know, we could actually pay well if the money wasn't being concentrated in these billionaires)
No. The government prints money and writes down rules that mean it can take money from people who've earned it. Most billionaires are paper billionaires. Their worth based on shares would not pay many bills, and it would certainly not exist once a government started seizing shares from people, as no one would buy them.
You take loans out using your shares as collateral. Why do you think Musk is panicking about Twitter being dogshit ? His shares are on the line. Their worth based on shares, converted to cash is the exact same number. Except that by taking a loan against it, they evade taxes at the same time.
> You take loans out using your shares as collateral.
Think for a second about the context from your previous comment, which is what I'm replying to.
You say if billionaires didn't exist we'd have money to pay for everything. Your latest comment makes no sense in light of this. Who is taking out these loans to pay for everything?
They make these loans to banks. Since they are, according to you, "paper" billionaires, clearly these banks do not have their money, so the money being lended either belongs to you, me or your neighbor, or is part of the money they create out of thin air on the daily (which ends up still being your money, since the state guarantees that this money will exist in the case of a crash). Since it is unlikely that a bank has, say, $40 billion in cash, it is pretty much all created out of thin air, which ends up costing you, and society in general.
Additionally, the focus on "but they don't ackshually have the money" is harmful at best, and a poor misdirection at worst. If I come in at a restaurant with only 3 bucks in my pocket, they're going to laugh me out the door. If Peter Thiel does the same (since he is after all a paper billionaire, he clearly doesn't have that money, right?), suddenly, it miraculously works out. Money is a proxy for influence. Cash is its physical representation, but it doesn't need to physically exist to influence you. If I promise you to wire you a hundred bucks, you'll happily mow my lawn, even though you'll never see a single bill.
An equally talented team of researchers and engineers (which, you know, we could actually pay well if the money wasn't being concentrated in these billionaires) could make ChatGPT, Bard or anything else. Hell, they could even make it something useful. This technology is too important to be left in the hands of a few.