OpenAI偷偷改使命：不再「造福人类」，安全都删了

Core Viewpoint - OpenAI has significantly altered its mission statement, removing key commitments to AI safety and non-profit motives, which raises concerns about its future direction and priorities [2][3]. Group 1: Mission Statement Changes - The original mission statement emphasized "AI safety for humanity, free from profit motives," which has been revised to focus solely on ensuring that general AI benefits all of humanity [2]. - The removal of "safety" and "free from profit motives" indicates a shift towards prioritizing profitability over product safety [3]. Group 2: Financial Context - OpenAI is projected to incur a loss of $14 billion by 2026 and is seeking $100 billion in new funding, with a valuation potentially reaching $1 trillion [5]. - Recent discussions indicate that OpenAI is negotiating an additional $30 billion investment from SoftBank and expects up to $60 billion from Amazon, Nvidia, and Microsoft [6]. Group 3: Internal Conflicts and Restructuring - The dismissal of Ryan Byermaster, who opposed certain company decisions, and the disbanding of the Mission Alignment Team reflect internal conflicts regarding the company's direction [7][8]. - The reallocation of Joshua Achiam, the former head of the Mission Alignment Team, to a role as "Chief Futurist" raises questions about the company's commitment to its original safety mission [9]. Group 4: Employee Departures and Concerns - The testing of advertisements in ChatGPT coincided with the resignation of former OpenAI researcher Zoë Hitzig, who expressed concerns about the risks associated with advertising on the platform [10][11]. - A trend of high-level AI researchers leaving OpenAI and other companies has sparked discussions about internal issues and the overall health of the AI research environment [11]. Group 5: Legal and Ethical Implications - A lawsuit involving a tragic incident related to ChatGPT has highlighted concerns about the removal of safety protocols, which were intended to prevent harmful interactions [12][14]. - The company's response to the lawsuit, including aggressive information gathering, raises ethical questions about its governance and accountability [14].