That's kind of the point, we all do. What is harder to understand are the low stakes whims of academics bickering over their fiefdoms.
This move is bringing the incentives back to a normal and understood paradigm. And as a user of AI, will likely lead to better, quicker, and less hamstringed products and should be in our benefit.
What’s ironic is how backwards people here have the narrative. Not sure you’re fully aware of what happened at OpenAI.
The “Open” types, ironically, wanted to keep LLMs hidden away from the public (something something religious AGI hysteria). These are the people who think they know better than you, and that we should centralize control with them for our own safety (see also, communism).
The evil profit motive you’re complaining about, is what democratized this tech and brought it to the masses in a form that is useful to them.
The “cash grab show” is the only incentive that has been proven to make people do useful things for the masses. Otherwise, it’s just way too tempting to hide in ivory towers and spend your days fantasizing about philosophical nonsense.
"Open"AI indeed was, and is, ironic, but in reality, MS acquisition of Altman and co is not going to change anything for anybody besides a bunch of California socialites. Not sure what sort of democratisation you are referring to, but I can bet my firstborn that whatever product MS develops will be just as open as GPT4.
I understand what money does to principles, but this is comical.