Talk:OpenAI/Archive 2

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ef2467 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Wangzitong1018 (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There are still a few potential issues with the lead in my opinion:

1. The removal and reinstatement of Altman deserves a sentence, but probably not a full paragraph. Currently, it occupies the third paragraph, and it is partially outdated.
2. Repetition of "AI boom" in the first paragraph.
3. The second paragraph contains information that a lot of readers may not be interested in and might even consider a bit boring, such as the name of cofounders that are not very well known. I'm not sure, but perhaps these details are not important enough to be in the lead.

Alenoach (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that the average person that just reads the lead doesn't really need to know each member of OpenAI's board, and sentences like "The new initial board included former Salesforce co-CEO Bret Taylor as chairman." in the lead may not even help the average reader understand what OpenAI is, especially if you don't know the mentioned person. We should probably rethink what's the essential information to provide in this lead for a general audience.

But I would appreciate some feedback to know what other contributors think, before making significant modifications. Alenoach (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Some ideas for what to mention in the third paragraph:

• resignations based on safety practices
• copyright controversy and lawsuits
• Nakasone and Microsoft on the board
• new partnerships

WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for responding late. Your modifications on the third paragraph seem fine. It may indeed also make sense to have a brief mention of the resignations based on safety practices, and in the 2nd paragraph a mention of the partnership with Apple.

Also, I propose to replace the sentence "Microsoft provided OpenAI Global, LLC with a US$1 billion investment in 2019 and a $10 billion investment in 2023, with a significant portion of the investment in the form of computational resources on Microsoft's Azure cloud service." by the sentences: "Microsoft owns 49% of OpenAI Global, LLC, having invested US$13 billion. It also provides computing resources to OpenAI through its Microsoft Azure cloud platform."

I also think that the first paragraph should mention DALL-E, Sora, and the term "generative AI". Alenoach (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alenoach Agree. The lead section is too detailed, and there's a lot of content in the article not summarized. The list of founders could be moved out of the lead section. The third paragraph is too detailed and could be reduced. The last sentence of the first paragraph could focus on ChatGPT or other notable products. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Quick searching indicates that both Microsoft and Apple have declined observer seats on OpenAI's board. This may be worth discussion in the article body, but without that I don't think it belongs in the lead section. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

For example, this Reuters article notes "regulatory scrutiny":

https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-ditches-openai-board-observer-seat-amid-regulatory-scrutiny-2024-07-10/

WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The article starts with the stated goals of OpenAI. I think that should be replaced with what the company actually does. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The aim to build AGI is pretty unusual yet central to the company, and the term "safe and beneficial" is appropriately quoted. So in my opinion, it's not really a problem, but I don't know what other contributors think. Alenoach (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the mission is not to build AGI, though I agree that the company currently aims to do so.

The charter blog post says:

> OpenAI’s mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work—benefits all of humanity. We will attempt to directly build safe and beneficial AGI, but will also consider our mission fulfilled if our work aids others to achieve this outcome.

(I have edited the page to fix this.) Rgreenblatt1 (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

As per MOS:LEAD I think it is worth mentioning launch of SearchGPT in lead. people keep removing it. it is a major product they launched in several months. Astropulse (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Alenoach Astropulse (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is a message that I posted on Astropulse's Talk page:

Hi Astropulse, I think it's still a bit too early to mention SearchGPT in the lead section of the article on OpenAI. But maybe one day, if it's fully released and has significant notability, it would be good to change the sentence "As a leading organization in the ongoing AI boom, OpenAI is known for the GPT family of large language models, the DALL-E series of text-to-image models, and a text-to-video model named Sora." into something like "As a leading organization in the ongoing AI boom, OpenAI is known for the GPT family of large language models, the DALL-E series of text-to-image models, a text-to-video model named Sora and the search engine SearchGPT."

And the response:

MOS:LEAD lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

It doesn't need to be significant notability. just notable. It launch has received lots of attention and is worth mentioning in lead

The choice of mentioning it in the lead or not is not obvious. There are various reliable sources on it, but like for a lot of things related to OpenAI that are not in the lead. I guess I would at least wait for the full release before mentioning it, if it's significant enough, by modifying the sentence "As a leading organization ...", because if readers can't yet use SearchGPT, perhaps it's not yet relevant for them to have it in the lead.

I'll let other Wikipedia editors decide on this. Alenoach (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

We just adding On July 26 2024, OpenAI announced SearchGPT an AI powered search engine. Astropulse (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

its a separate sentence Astropulse (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if you argue for adding this as the separate sentence "On July 26 2024, OpenAI announced SearchGPT an AI powered search engine.", then it's lengthier and I'm more opposed, sorry. There are really a lot of things with OpenAI that make news headlines. But I propose to wait for the feedback of other contributors to see what they think. Alenoach (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no doubt that SearchGPT will be notable enough to mention in the lead once launched, but what's the rush? Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and so far all we have is routine announcement coverage that all says the same thing. We don't even know if it will be available this year (after they released and then un-released browsing in ChatGPT last year I'd expect them to be cautious with the timeline). Lets wait until the article has substantial coverage, right now there are just 2 sentences about it. Jamedeus (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2024 and 20 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BoredOnASunday (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bsbl2004, Panda23 24.

— Assignment last updated by Envpoli (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2024 and 20 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BoredOnASunday (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bsbl2004, Panda23 24.

— Assignment last updated by Simba06 (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There has been a template saying that the history section, especially about 2024, is too long. The content needs to be condensed here, but perhaps we should move it to a new article "History of OpenAI" before condensing here?

Also, I reverted this edit, sorry. Not that it would be inherently bad, but it's not the standard way to format things on Wikipedia. Alenoach (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I just saw that my edit from a week ago was reverted, but I believe it should be reinstated. Generally, this material is biased and has not been settled. It is also guilty of bias through omission, ie, the simple statement that AI safety researchers left implies a problem with the company itself, which is not elaborated on.

Pending lawsuits are not settled matters, and the 5-day removal and reinstatement of an executive does not seem significant enough for the lead section (or, potentially, the page itself).

I view these things as questionable on whether they are significant enough for the page at all, but the lead section in particular is beyond their scope. I am therefore going to reinstate my reverted edit and remove this part of the lead. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize the entire body, so summarizing some of the controversies seems due and appropriate. There are multiple pending lawsuits that may set a precedent for how AI training and inference content are treated under copyright law, which is significant. If the 5-day ouster and reinstatement of the CEO were insignificant, we wouldn't have an entire page dedicated to it. The departure of AI safety researchers and co-founders around the same timeframe, along with the shutdown of the company's superalignment team, was widely discussed in RS'es. I agree that this part of the lead is lacking and should be improved, though not removed. Over time, if these events become insignificant, they can be removed or replaced with other controversies with due weight. Ptrnext (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I see the reasoning now and agree with you. I went ahead and read through the sources and tried to improve specificity based on the contents of those sources. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Óskadddddd, I saw that you changed the logo. The previous image looked better, but I guess you changed it for some legal reason related to copyrights. I would be curious to know if this is necessary. From what I see in Commons, it was considered that the previous image does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is thus free to use on Wikipedia. Alenoach (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, It's not necessarily a copyright change, from my point of view. The company (seems) to have made this their primary logo, so I thought it was right to change it on Wikipedia. I'll explain my decision:

If you look on the OpenAI website, it seems they have moved on from having the Blossom besides the wordmark (It's either only the blossom or the wordmark). Also in OpenAI's Design Guidelines, this was stated "DON'T use the Blossom as the primary branding". I thought of it mostly as a rebranding and changed the logo here on Wikipedia to better reflect that + I found these sources [1] [2]. However, I'm not against my logo switch being reverted, as I don't have a preference for the logo (the company uses both anyways). Óskadddddd (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

That's indeed what they explicitly say. So I guess we should use your version. Alenoach (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

In mid-May 2025, the organization announced that it would split the for-profit and the not-for-profit parts into two separate organizations: Kdammers (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

https://openai.com/index/evolving-our-structure/?_bhlid=acebb9c4409ddd4e255e8d36efed5f2ed075b08f Kdammers (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a subsection on this, see OpenAI#Proposed_shift_from_nonprofit_control. Basically, they wanted the nonprofit to cede its current control of the for-profit. The plan was officially renounced in May after criticism, although in practice the leadership still wants to transition to a PBC, likely undermining nonprofit control. Alenoach (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I searched for "ai preemption" and found numerous news articles from within the last two weeks on the lobbying efforts to formulate federal regulation in place of state regulation, including this Politico article that briefly covers OpenAI. This Bloomberg Law article from March seems to suggest that OpenAI played an active role in raising this discussion. I'm not sure where this content would fit, or if it's substantial enough to include. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe notable enough for a sentence? I suggest adding this sentence just before the subsection "Stance on China", sourced with the Bloomberg Law article:

In March 2025, OpenAI made a policy proposal for the Trump administration to preempt state laws with federal laws. Alenoach (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

A related paragraph has been developed in Regulation of artificial intelligence. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Alenoach: Regarding Special:Diff/1304556696, the style guideline MOS:TMCAPS states, For trademarks, editors should choose among styles already in common use (not invent new ones) and, among those, use the style that most closely resembles standard English text formatting and capitalization rules. As GPT-OSS is an acronym and has been capitalized as such in reliable sources, it is to be capitalized on Wikipedia, per MOS:CAPSACRS. (Even if you were to consider the product name a non-acronym, it should still be spelled as a proper noun, i.e. Gpt-oss, and not in full lowercase.) — Newslinger talk 19:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

MOS:TMCAPS: "For trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as adidas), follow the formatting and capitalization used by independent reliable sources. When sources are mixed, follow the standard formatting and capitalization used for proper names (in this case, as in most, Adidas)."

The official term "gpt-oss" seems more frequent in reliable sources, but one can reasonably consider that the "sources are mixed" and use "GPT-OSS". I would appreciate the opinion of a third editor on this, but I won't mind if you switch back to "GPT-OSS" in the meantime. Alenoach (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The third opinion sounds like a good idea, so I've listed this discussion at WP:3O § Active disagreements. The capitalization is really not a big deal to me, but whatever we settle on should be applied consistently in related articles such as Products and applications of OpenAI and List of large language models. — Newslinger talk 08:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Given that allcap GPT is pretty universal across the AI/LMM world, including most of the readily-available online information, and that sources are certainly mixed in my lay-person's review, I think the capitalized version is preferable here. Also, having spent too much time perusing AN/I lately, it sure is good to see rational consensus building; I hope I helped. ☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 14:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@WeyerStudentOfAgrippa Regarding the split proposal of the "Products and applications", personally, I'm slightly opposed because I think this section is important. I would prefer a split of the "History" section. Perhaps there could also one day be a split of the article between the nonprofit and the for-profit, although that would be more complex to implement. Alenoach (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Both sections are important. However, the full product listing includes early and technical projects that are less generally notable. A summarized section could remain here. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The current prose size is 9415 words, and it keeps getting longer. Something should probably be reorganized. Multiple sections could be shortened, but planning which new articles to create may be helpful. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

If you see a good way to implement the split of the "Products and applications" section, you can do it. Alenoach (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I implemented the split. The products section here can still be expanded and reorganized. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Czarking0, do you think a split of the history section should be done, or that it's better to keep it here? Alenoach (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Although if we choose to split the content on history, we should maybe also split the content on controversies, otherwise it would occupy a disproportionate part of the article. Alenoach (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I think this article should follow WP:CRITS Czarking0 (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The benefit of having a Controversies section here is that you can cleanly separate them into subsections, merging it into "History" would make things messy. Alenoach (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, but I also do not think this is the main issue with the article Czarking0 (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I feel like I am missing some context. Is this section the full discussion? Czarking0 (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

No missing context, this is a standalone discussion. I was just curious about what you think, since you seem to have spent some time condensing the history section. I'm actually uncertain how to best organize this article, just wanted your opinion. Alenoach (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Gathering my thoughts still. I may not have a good answer for this today but I will continue to reflect on it as I do care. Looking at the article size graph on the page statistics, I see that the article has got a lot smaller recently. Was there already some split? What is driving that? I know I have cut stuff but I don't think I cut that much. Czarking0 (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

There was a split of the "Products and applications" section into the article Products and applications of OpenAI. I believe we should have more information in this section, even if it was split. Either some prose to give an overview of the products, or perhaps some kind of table similar to what is in ChatGPT#Model_versions. Alenoach (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I am struggling to find the split discussion, can you link it to me? Czarking0 (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Wait are you saying this section was the split discussion that created Products and applications of OpenAI? Czarking0 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

yes. Alenoach (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

DYK check puts the article size at 5796 words. I don't think this points to a terribly strong need to reduce the article size. I think the more important work for this article is content right now. I think the sectioning will remain bad as long as the content is bad. If you were looking for a split I would actually suggest making List of OpenAI Employees and removing management section. Czarking0 (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the management section is too small for a split, and there is already a category for OpenAI employees. Alenoach (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Size is not the only criteria for a split. As it currently stands this section does not make a good embedded list it would serve its purpose better as a listicle. Categories do not serve the same purpose as listicles. Czarking0 (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Triton (programming language) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 11 § Triton (programming language) until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

work in progress Proposed layout:

 Founding - top level section focusing on history and persons from 2015-2016 
 Corporate structure - top level section focusing on evolving corporate structure 
   Capped for profit - subsection to discuss the transition to capped for profit 
   Microsoft partnership - subsection to discuss partnership
   Firing of Altman - subsection moved here
   Acquisitions - subsection to discuss companies acquired
   Additional investment - subsection for funding rounds unrelated to the founding and the microsoft partnership 
 Technology - top level section for discussing the history of technological progress
 Services - top level section prefer prose, make it somewhat historical with heavy excerpting 
   Models - subsection to make a distinction between the models and the actual services. You cannot by GPT4 but you can purchase an API service providing access to the model
 Data law - top level section to discuss copyright, data deals, and other matters data and legal 
 Superintelligence - top level section to group discussion of this 

I am possibly missing something and there may need to be additional subsections added but I think most of what does not fit in here is undue weight for having its own section or encyclopedic.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2025 and 10 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bwt118 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by W. Hiraldo (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

It appears that statement is currently outdated? Unfortunately I'm no lawyer and can't really warp my head around the complex non-profit, for-profit corp structure. It seems the recent restructure made that line outdated. However, I can't confirm for certain. I've added the recent info about restructure/for-profit to that passage, but not touch that statement. (At least, it seem like the non-profit portion is going to be called OpenAI Foundation. So OpenAI, Inc isn't part of the picture?) Anothercat613 (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

My understanding from the new sources today is that the non-profit is still "technically" in control, but it's somewhat unclear what that will mean going forward. Per NYT the non-profit appoints the board of directors for the for-profit and can replace them at any time. But given that the non-profit board members will also serve on the for-profit board I can see why some are questioning its independence (ie if I'm on both boards am I really going to reign myself in?).

This is all just speculation for now though, given that RS are currently reporting that the non-profit remains in control I think we need to stick with that. I'm sure much will be written about how much power the non-profit actually has once the new structure is in full effect. Jamedeus (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

What is up with removing this? I think this was particularly notable. Does it need better sourcing? Czarking0 (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be "particularly notable" compared to other corporate investments, but I previously found it appropriate to mention in the lead section, being a significant fact about OpenAI. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Lead or not I don't have strong opinion on, but it should be in the article. Owning 49% of a company is a defining stake in the company that is one of the most important details about any company? Czarking0 (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you're right, that's important information, which would need better sourcing. The 49% seems accurate although not officially confirmed. The 10x cap looks more speculative, that may not be exactly 10x. Alenoach (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

To summarize, Microsoft is entitled to some of OpenAI's for-profit gains up to a cap. Rumors say Microsoft gets 75% until it gets its money back, and then 49% up to the cap. Here is one potential source from FT, although it does not talk about the 75% like the one from The Verge (which is less reliable as it was published earlier). The issue here is that the details of the deal were not made public, the information seems to originate from anonymous sources. Alenoach (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

What about the investment amounts? Do we have sourcing to say something like "Microsoft has invested a total of $13 billion in OpenAI."? OpenAI#Partnership with Microsoft states that an investment of $10 billion was "announced" in 2023. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I think saying that Microsoft invested over $13 billion into OpenAI is correct and can easily be reliably sourced.

Important thing though: Microsoft has apparently reached a new agreement that would become effective if it transitions to a for-profit. Apparently, Microsoft would get a $100 billion equity stake instead of the 49%. Alenoach (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be new development. Now it's 27% stake.

It's honestly a bit hard to keep track of. But yeah, 49% probably no longer relevant. Anothercat613 (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a bit of a moot point now that they've restructured and Microsoft's stake has been revised to 27%, but CNBC reported today that under the previous structure Microsoft's stake was 32.5%. I'm not sure if this means 49% was never accurate but clearly something changed since it was first reported. Jamedeus (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

At the time I'm writing this, the article includes five em dashes that aren't in quoted text or references. Does Wikipedia have a policy on the use of em dashes in AI-related articles, given that they may give the impression that parts of the text were composed by an AI? Gildir (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

There is no policy against em-dash. They have long been used on wikipedia and many news sources before GenAI existed. That how the GenAI learned to use em-dash. Czarking0 (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to OpenAI has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Brockman met with Yoshua Bengio, one of the "founding fathers" of deep learning, and drew up a list great AI researchers" to "Brockman met with Yoshua Bengio, one of the "founding fathers" of deep learning, and drew up a list of great AI researchers ". Ghitchens12 (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done meamemg (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)