Earlier quoted context omitted.
That we still don’t have rapid recharge close to gas?
I dont know... high voltage and gas fumes dont sound like they mix.
Well done sir.
Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT
451–460 of 541 posts
Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT
#452Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this not your comment directly addressing me? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34327652 Maybe my browser is broken and displaying the wrong username next to it?
Even though this exchange seems hopeless, I still wish you a happy 2023.
You too!
Just so you know, as I've seen some people make mistakes like this in the past (example: non-native English speakers), when you directly ask someone a question, us native speakers would consider it "directly addressing" them.
So in the future, if you want to refer to a group only, in English you need to not directly ask a question starting with "Have you...".
Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT
#453Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT
#454Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT
#455Does MS think they have a big moat in these? It won't be long until we have an open version , and although they need a lot of compute , maybe in 1-2 years they ll have come down in size enough to be usable. Is it the training data?
From what I have read with these models it is in-fact the data that can be the most useful piece of the puzzle.
Microsoft can get just as much data as openAI has.
Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT
#456I can't imagine using ChatGPT for anything, personally. As a society we have grown physically obese on high calorie, sugar-packed foods combined with a sedentary lifestyle. Seems like we're about to become mentally obese when we no longer have to use our minds read or write and can just be spoon-fed AI generated words, music, and video. We will become a society of fat, drooling simpletons sitting in recliners consumi…
By that definition, you shouldn't be using computers or calculators or contacts application on the phone. These tools are augmenting our own computational units we carry around. Sort of like a external storage or a external tpu.
Yeah they are all crutches. I feel bad that I can't add three-digit numbers in my head when my grandparents could do it easily.
When I was in high school I remembered all my friends' phone numbers. Now I don't know anyone's number.
I don't think it augments our computational units, it atrophies them and we become ever more dependent on the tools. Yes, the tools can also do things beyond (or faster than) what the best human mind can do -- but at a cost.
Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT
#457Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the text of the license from this repo [1]. Seems pretty open to me? About this license The Responsible AI License allows users to take advantage of the model in a wide range of settings (including free use and redistribution) as long as they respect the specific use case restrictions outlined, which correspond to model applications the licensor deems ill-suited for the model or are likely to cause harm. [1]…
Compare https://opensource.org/osd This isn't a very minor point, as this was an explicit discussion and is also OSI's translation of Debian's translation of Richard Stallman's "freedom 0". That is, it's an important, and explicit, tradition/consensus in FOSS that users aren't restricted in the purposes for which they may use the software.
I don't have an opinion on this one way or another, but if the RAIL license concerns you, then perhaps you can take it up with the organization behind it? https://www.licenses.ai/
Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT
#458Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have any answer or opinion on whether the company "is open", I'm not sure how to operationalize that. But what you can say is that some but not all of their released products are released with code under open source licenses. Eg: https://github.com/openai/whisper/blob/main/LICENSE (an actual product, to transcribe audio, which it really does extremely well; and it's open source code; released last fall) So th…
> So that's one sense in which they produce "open" things today. But so does Microsoft, Google, or even Apple. But I don't think anyone would claim these companies are “Open” in any meaningful way.
What does it even mean for a company to "be open"?
Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT
#459Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stable Diffusion's code and model weights can be downloaded, but it's proprietary, not Open Source.
This is the text of the license from this repo [1]. Seems pretty open to me? About this license The Responsible AI License allows users to take advantage of the model in a wide range of settings (including free use and redistribution) as long as they respect the specific use case restrictions outlined, which correspond to model applications the licensor deems ill-suited for the model or are likely to cause harm. [1]…
That is not open source. That's at most source available. Consider, what will they do if they think you're using ill-suited use cases? How would they even determine something like that?
Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT
#460Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's "open" relative to all of the research being IP of Google and FB. They pulled researchers into their own org and out of FAANG which I think was part of the motivation. They pitched it as open to the public, but I'm not sure that's what it was. I think opinions also changed because of goal alignment and AGI safety ideas becoming better understood.
FAANG engineers usually publish their research in top NLP conferences ran by the ACL, which forces all published papers to have a permissive license and highly incentives people to contribute code along with the paper for reproducibility reasons. You don't know what you're talking about. OpenAI has done a lot of self publishing/arxiv to avoid getting slammed in peer review by the fact that none of what they have is o…
> what they have is open source
How is https://github.com/openai/whisper not open source?