That seems a bit cynical. While SD's creator might not recoup that money directly, a lot of end users have benefited from its creation. That money has figuratively gone up in flames no more than the time or labor cost of an open source developer whose code is used by millions of people, IMO.
It's a bit cynical; my point is that it's the kind of decision you get to make when you're the sole owner of $100 million and not the kind you get to make when you're a startup company founder working with other investors' money.
OpenAI wouldn't have been able to do what StabilityAI did because OpenAI is incentivized to make return on investment; Mohammad Emad Mostaque is not.
I agree but:You know openai is ostensibly a nonprofit and only created a "limited profit partnership" once they thought they could make big bucks? I've been saying the nonprofit part is a grift to get idealistic people work there for years, but technically they had exactly the right incentive structure
I found their sudden non-profit to profit trajectory extremely dishonest. Their mission statement also reads like moralistic verbiage, rather than the statement of disinterested pioneers of AI - which is problematic given how this has become a money thing for OpenAI, rather than an idealistic pursuit.
That seems a bit cynical. While SD's creator might not recoup that money directly, a lot of end users have benefited from its creation. That money has figuratively gone up in flames no more than the time or labor cost of an open source developer whose code is used by millions of people, IMO.