Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 117 posts

Re: OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI

#31

Post by trsohmers »

londons_explore wrote: post #23
dx034 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather a few thousands at least. Most larger companies have that amount of data (if they can use the model is another question).

Yep, but running inference on it at any reasonable performance requires you to have all of it in GPU RAM - Ie. you need a cluster of ~100 high performance GPU's.

The largest version of GPT-3 is 175B parameters, which is ~350GB. I frequently use 8x and 10x RTX8000 boxes (and can access a 16x JBOG system as well), and the 8x system would have 384GB of VRAM. These sort of systems start off at only ~$60k.

Re: OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI

#32

Post by ypcx »

GPT-3 is (the process of) general AI being born in front of our eyes, catching us unprepared, making us realize that the we may be a bit rigid in understanding of what intelligence really means. If primed correctly, can GPT-3 produce worthwhile improvements to its own paper or implementation? Can GPT-3 be made to prime and query itself in a loop, by asking it to produce a better query for itself? Can its knowledge be already used to disrupt existing frontiers of human thought? The simple and safe answer here is that we don't know yet.

In a world full of ideological adversity and cold-blooded corporate competition, slowing down the release of technology which may or may not be capable of a runaway effect (a.k.a. technological singularity) in the hands of an adversary is an intelligent and prudent thing to do.

Re: OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI

#33

Post by albntomat0 »

timkam wrote: post #2

Can anyone point to a more nuanced perspective on this? Ideally not only with regards to OpenAI; it is still quite common that research published in some of the "top" venues does not disclose the underlying source code. Anecdote: I once pushed researchers to publish their code when I was peer-reviewing and it turned out that the code was super slow in comparison to the benchmark algorithms they compared with (compari…

Here's my alternative view:

If OpenAI had open sourced GPT-3, there would be an equivalently angry thread about how they were endangering democracy/social order/etc, and not being responsible with the powerful tool they had created (see other threads on HN regarding those working in facial recognition).

Both that group, and the one posting here have valid points, and there would be strong, valid critique of their decision no matter which way they chose.

Re: OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI

#34

Post by albntomat0 »

b-x wrote: post #26
csomar wrote: post #20

I believe, having worked a little bit with GPT-2, that OpenAI is intentionally sabotaging access to their AI algorithm and data. They have started this sabotage with GPT-2 and with GPT-3 they simply didn't open source it. For GPT-2, their repository ( https://github.com/openai/gpt-2 ) is archived. Which is as good as saying that the project is abandoned and will receive no updates. The project already doesn't compile…

> "This AI stuff is dangerous to world" It's not exactly that, their rhetoric is: "This AI stuff is dangerous to world if YOU use it. But when we use it, it is good." All entities think that they hold the key to good values, while the others are always suspected of hiding vile intentions.

That's a stronger opinion about their views than necessarily is true.

Based on their actions, OpenAI seems to (rightly, in my opinion) view that some people would misuse GPT-3/etc, even if the majority would not.

Re: OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI

#35

Post by Aissen »

csomar wrote: post #20

I believe, having worked a little bit with GPT-2, that OpenAI is intentionally sabotaging access to their AI algorithm and data. They have started this sabotage with GPT-2 and with GPT-3 they simply didn't open source it. For GPT-2, their repository ( https://github.com/openai/gpt-2 ) is archived. Which is as good as saying that the project is abandoned and will receive no updates. The project already doesn't compile…

> For GPT-2, their repository is archived

Fun fact: the GPT-3 repo (https://github.com/openai/gpt-3 ) is archived too, but it does use the GitHub archive feature, unlike the GPT-2 repo.

Re: OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI

#36

Post by albntomat0 »

csomar wrote: post #20

I believe, having worked a little bit with GPT-2, that OpenAI is intentionally sabotaging access to their AI algorithm and data. They have started this sabotage with GPT-2 and with GPT-3 they simply didn't open source it. For GPT-2, their repository ( https://github.com/openai/gpt-2 ) is archived. Which is as good as saying that the project is abandoned and will receive no updates. The project already doesn't compile…

> Oh, and by the way, I believe saying "This AI stuff is dangerous to world", the same as politicians saying "We need to check your web history for pedophilia stuff". It's funny how some people don't see the irony in how they oppose one thing and support another that is practically the same.

Some AI/ML applications are clearly dangerous to the world. See other HN comment sections when facial recognition comes up.

Re: OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI

#37

Post by screye »

gas9S9zw3P9c wrote: post #11

Someone asked for a more nuanced perspective, so here we go. For a lot of AI researchers, OpenAI has been a huge disappointment. We had hope that OpenAI would be the company to democratize AI with good open source work, transparency, no PR bullshit (aka DeepMind), and evangelism. That they would develop in the open, and perhaps even do research in the open. You know, kind of like the name says. It all started out oka…

Hugging face and the Spacy team have done some incredible work. Huge fan of both for my NLP projects.

Re: OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI

#40

Post by steev »

gas9S9zw3P9c wrote: post #11

Someone asked for a more nuanced perspective, so here we go. For a lot of AI researchers, OpenAI has been a huge disappointment. We had hope that OpenAI would be the company to democratize AI with good open source work, transparency, no PR bullshit (aka DeepMind), and evangelism. That they would develop in the open, and perhaps even do research in the open. You know, kind of like the name says. It all started out oka…

I don't see how this is a nuanced perspective - it seems to restate the same complaints/arguments just about every comment makes in these discussions.

A nuanced perspective would look at the arguments as to why OpenAI is doing the things they are doing. For example:

* OpenAI publishes in closed journals (actually conference proceedings) because that is where all the cutting edge research is published and reviewed. I cannot recall an OpenAI paper that wasn't available either via arXiv or their website, despite being published in a closed journal. What is the alternative here? Where should they go for quality peer-review? Yes you can argue the peer review at top conferences is not quality, but is worse quality than no peer-review or peer review from open-access no-name journals?

* How does OpenAI make money? How much are they bringing in? How much does it cost to support things like the OpenAI Gym, etc.? How much does it cost OpenAI in terms of bandwidth to host pre-trained versions of GPT-3? At some point a company needs to make money and prioritize resources - they can't give everything away for free in perpetuity.

I don't think these questions have obvious answers - there is give and take.

Post reply on HN