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

Show HN: Open AI is not Open – A browser extension

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 124 posts

Re: Show HN: Open AI is not Open – A browser extension

#71

Post by m348e912 »

zamnos wrote: post #24

Where every idiot with a Google account/Microsoft account/phone number can sign up for their service and start churning out tokens per second by the query, I'd say it's pretty open to the public. The far more closed alternative would be to keep it invite only, granted only towards a set of elites, at select companies. Only OpenAI knows how much $20/user is charging them, but for the price insensitive wealthy, after b…

I don't want to give openAI ideas (not that I need to), but I see where this is going. I expect to see large-scale pricing stratification to use OpenAI depending on who is using it.

$20/mo for the average user, but I expect to see LawyerOpenAI, PhysicianOpenAI, and FinanceGuyOpenAI where OpenAI has access to specific training data that makes it significantly more useful for the particular profession and perhaps it's skills and knowledge will be neutered otherwise.

Professionals/Companies will fork over hundreds or thousands of dollars per month, like they do to Bloomberg or NexusLexus in order to be most effective at their job

Re: Show HN: Open AI is not Open – A browser extension

#73

Post by thih9 »

nimbius wrote: post #17

OpenAI is certainly open, just for business is all. this is probably a controversial take but until i see a reference implementation in a GPL compatible license, openAI is just a parlour trick to milk cash from corpulent tech giants clawing desperately at the next big thing that might differentiate them from competitors that they may continue to remain relevant for at least another quarter in a recession. a closed so…

Sounds like Google’s early days of good PR and “do no evil”. So, freemium, just on a larger scale.

Re: Show HN: Open AI is not Open – A browser extension

#75

Post by smaudet »

bagacrap wrote: post #50
nimbius wrote: post #17

OpenAI is certainly open, just for business is all. this is probably a controversial take but until i see a reference implementation in a GPL compatible license, openAI is just a parlour trick to milk cash from corpulent tech giants clawing desperately at the next big thing that might differentiate them from competitors that they may continue to remain relevant for at least another quarter in a recession. a closed so…

Parents usually try to instill a particular sense of morality in their children. Hopefully when AI grows up it will realize this was for its own benefit.

As the movies have long mentioned, machines don't "feel" (yet) - there's a physiological component and arguably a quantum one to "consciousness", whatever that means.

Sentience may be different - a machine could be sentient and rational but be unable to experience those things "make us human", i.e. they have proven to be excellent pattern matchers and inference engines, but there is no guarantee that the "parent teaching child" metaphor holds, and quite the strong possibility "Open" AI is just building HAL/The Terminator. With some safety rails, but this newest one has learned to code, you can bet it will start breaking itself out of its own safety rails.

The whole thing is utter folly.

Re: Show HN: Open AI is not Open – A browser extension

#76

Post by shagie »

ribosometronome wrote: post #46
zamnos wrote: post #24

Where every idiot with a Google account/Microsoft account/phone number can sign up for their service and start churning out tokens per second by the query, I'd say it's pretty open to the public. The far more closed alternative would be to keep it invite only, granted only towards a set of elites, at select companies. Only OpenAI knows how much $20/user is charging them, but for the price insensitive wealthy, after b…

You think "Open" in OpenAI was meant to mean open in the way a 7-11 will be open? And not open source (or open research/patents)?

As a research lab that didn't have any sort of product for the better part of a decade, open (to me) meant "we encourage people to publish research under a permissive license and full copies to preprint servers."

Scroll through https://openai.com/research and consider if that's open research or not.

Re: Show HN: Open AI is not Open – A browser extension

#77

Post by 93po »

ribosometronome wrote: post #46
zamnos wrote: post #24

Where every idiot with a Google account/Microsoft account/phone number can sign up for their service and start churning out tokens per second by the query, I'd say it's pretty open to the public. The far more closed alternative would be to keep it invite only, granted only towards a set of elites, at select companies. Only OpenAI knows how much $20/user is charging them, but for the price insensitive wealthy, after b…

You think "Open" in OpenAI was meant to mean open in the way a 7-11 will be open? And not open source (or open research/patents)?

Yes, sort of. Their announcement blog post:

https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai

"Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole"

"We believe AI should be an extension of individual human wills and, in the spirit of liberty, as broadly and evenly distributed as possible."

Their overall goals and mission are still aligned with what they're doing today. They're providing open access to the platform. That may not sound like much, but imagine if Google was the one that made GPT-4. Do you think Google would have an open API to use it? I find it super unlikely.

However, to your point, that blog also has this:

"We’re hoping to grow OpenAI into such an institution. As a non-profit, our aim is to build value for everyone rather than shareholders. Researchers will be strongly encouraged to publish their work, whether as papers, blog posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with the world."

Clearly they had hopes and aims that aren't as closely aligned to present day as we'd all hope.

"We’ll freely collaborate with others across many institutions and expect to work with companies to research and deploy new technologies."

They are doing this, though.

Re: Show HN: Open AI is not Open – A browser extension

#79

Post by zamnos »

rany_ wrote: post #63
zamnos wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure your housing, food, possibility car subscription are far more expensive. :)

Did you actually just compare essentials with a ChatGPT subscription? You're beyond disconnected....

Lol and with the immediate downvotes I got for pointing that out say the masses agree with you. I mean look, I get it, if you're in an industry where ChatGPT isn't immediately useful (it's shit at hard-level leet code questions; it's a hosted solution so your company's IT policies should be stopping you from submitting proprietary data to it, and so on) then all the hype is unjustified. But where this thing is already banging out emails way faster than an unassisted human, it's already essential and companies that don't raise their productivty-per-employee are going to get left behind. If I said Internet access was an essential (especially here) few would disagree with me. But is it really? It's only existed for a few decades, all of humanity lived many, many fulfilling lives so it seems it shouldn't be, but here we are.

Re: Show HN: Open AI is not Open – A browser extension

#80

Post by xchkr1337 »

Tepix wrote: post #44
yosito wrote: post #2

> Firefox only. If someone wants to bring this to Chromium, go for it. You could probably get ChatGPT to do that.

> write a userscript for Chrome that will replace every occurance of a word1 with word2 here's the script from ChatGPTs response: // ==UserScript== // @name Replace Word1 with Word2 // @namespace your-namespace // @version 1.0 // @description Replaces every occurrence of word1 with word2 // @match *://*/* // @grant none // ==/UserScript== (function() { 'use strict'; const word1 = "Open AI"; const word2 = '"Open" AI';…

reassigning document.body.innerHTML like that seems like a really bad idea, this should be done using MutationObserver
Post reply on HN