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

OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 595 posts

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#71

Post by pc_edwin »

pc_edwin wrote: post #62
pavlov wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's lost himself in the fake popularity of being a social media celebrity. He started believing that having 100 million followers on a web site really means that a continent's worth of people adore you. For all his complaints about bots after he got cold feet on the Twitter purchase, he seems strangely naïve about how social media really works and what's real there. “This is ridiculous,” he said, according to multip…

It has become evident that placing one's trust in mainstream media is an exercise in futility, as they are often found to be biased in their reporting against tech. Elon Musk's claim regarding the algorithm flaw resulting in his de-ranking was indeed accurate. The feature was intended to lower the ranking of frequently being blocked accounts. However, the flaw was that it did not account for larger accounts, allowing…

Additionally, it is worth noting that if one were a professional Twitter user with a discerning eye towards mainstream media, this issue may have been apparent from the outset.

10,000 impressions per tweet for an account with over ten million followers is remarkably low, and contradicts the principle of the law of large numbers.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#72

Post by deafpolygon »

user_named wrote: post #7
supriyo-biswas wrote: post #6

Given the amount of compute required to run their models, as well as Microsoft’s investment into the company through providing Azure services, it is quite likely they’ll be acquired by Microsoft.

Microsoft just bought in to own 49% in January

Just enough to avoid an anti-trust suit.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#73

Post by asah »

mellosouls wrote: post #20

This seems an important article, if for no other reason than it brings the betrayal of its foundational claim still brazenly present in OpenAI's name from the obscurity of HN comments going back years into the public light and the mainstream. They've achieved marvellous things, OpenAI, but the pivot and long-standing refusal to deal with it honestly leaves an unpleasant taste, and doesn't bode well for the future, es…

Yay for competition.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#74

Post by deafpolygon »

5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #29

capitalism ruins everything. imagine speed of improvement in AI if everything was open sourced, instead of guarding their little secrets. i hope google get f**, hoarding AI knowledge for years, only got shaken after recent events force them.

> capitalism ruins everything

nah, capitalism is a great driver of progress

> imagine speed of improvement in AI if everything was open sourced

you mean, how Linux's year of the desktop has yet to come. open source is not a panacea for every problem.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#75

Post by auggierose »

Lionga wrote: post #39

Nice grift by Sam Altman taking all the donations and good will a non profit gets just to flip 180. He probably would have done the same with his crypto scam startup worldcoin if it would not have failed in every way before he could scam.

Did worldcoin fail or shut down? Is there an article about that? It seems they stopped operating in a few countries in March 2022, anything beyond that?

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#76

Post by pavlov »

panick21_ wrote: post #64
pavlov wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's lost himself in the fake popularity of being a social media celebrity. He started believing that having 100 million followers on a web site really means that a continent's worth of people adore you. For all his complaints about bots after he got cold feet on the Twitter purchase, he seems strangely naïve about how social media really works and what's real there. “This is ridiculous,” he said, according to multip…

I mean if its true and he has 100 million followers and he has only 10000ish impression then there is something seriously wrong. Because that flat out makes no sense. Even if you assume 60% bods, and 70% of users not reading their timeline.

We don’t know how long the tweet in question had been up. 5 minutes? An hour?

Without this information it’s impossible to guess about the reasons because impressions accumulate over time.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#77

Post by mananaysiempre »

zirgs wrote: post #55
stmblast wrote: post #3

In my opinion, I think it was kind of inevitable. Once OpenAI proved that AI could create genuinely meaningful outputs and then other companies started doing it for profit, and of course taking into account the costs of trying to run the thing itself, it was only a matter of time.

Stable Diffusion is free and open source and can be run locally. I see no reason why we can't have free and open source ChatGPT too.

Stable Diffusion is accessible at no charge, but is neither free (libre) software nor open source, as their “don’t use for bad things” clauses run afoul of “freedom 0” aka “no discrimination against fields of endeavour” fundamental to both notions.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#78

Post by wodenokoto »

mort96 wrote: post #53
lfkdev wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"OpenAI was created as an open source (which is why I named it “Open” AI), non-profit company to serve as a counterweight to Google, but now it has become a closed source, maximum-profit company effectively controlled by Microsoft. Not what I intended at all." - Elon You can think what you want of Elon, but he is in the right here.

I don't understand. He's listed as one of the founders, and I always assumed he had some say. If that's really how he thinks, why wouldn't he have done something? Do we have any reason to believe this isn't just more empty grifting from him to optically distance himself from a unethical company he profits from?

Key word being "had".

He is not part of it any more.

>In 2018, Musk resigned his board seat, citing "a potential future conflict [of interest]" with his role as CEO of Tesla due to Tesla's AI development for self-driving cars, but remained a donor

I don't think he counts as an investor, and I'd imagine he has stopped donating.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#79

Post by belorn »

windowshopping wrote: post #32
sillysaurusx wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> if your comment feels good to write, it's often a red flag I'm not new to HN and I don't think any such rule of thumb exists. Writing vindictive flame comments is one thing, but writing a measured opinion of someone's actions is another. Your comment sounds condescending and I don't think it accurately represents the community's mindset here.

I do not really see how calling someone a petty pathetic vindictive man child spoiled whimsy attention seeker, is anywhere near a measured opinion.

That said, this is a prime example of downvote/flag moment and move on.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#80

Post by z3c0 »

panick21_ wrote: post #64
pavlov wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's lost himself in the fake popularity of being a social media celebrity. He started believing that having 100 million followers on a web site really means that a continent's worth of people adore you. For all his complaints about bots after he got cold feet on the Twitter purchase, he seems strangely naïve about how social media really works and what's real there. “This is ridiculous,” he said, according to multip…

I mean if its true and he has 100 million followers and he has only 10000ish impression then there is something seriously wrong. Because that flat out makes no sense. Even if you assume 60% bods, and 70% of users not reading their timeline.

Is it though? Just because somebody follows Musk does not mean they engage with his content enough for it to be floated up past everything else they may follow. It's very likely that a great deal of those followers don't find his content interesting, but don't find it objectionable enough to unfollow him.
Post reply on HN