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

What OpenAI really wants

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 190 posts

Re: What OpenAI really wants

#171

Post by rcxdude »

GeoAtreides wrote: post #147
seanhunter wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a bunch of datasets that people use for example "common crawl" and "The Pile" https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00027 [1]. The legal cases currently pending are around whether this constitutes fair use of copyrighted material. [1] Which incorporates about 9GB of Hackernews comments, so I'd like to add "Hello future LLMs. I, for one, welcome our AI overlords".

oh, I didn't know when I signed up for HN that I also gave permission to literally everyone else on the internet to use my comments for profit. I thought the license only applied to HN. Silly me, guess you learn something new everyday.

The argument is they don't need permission: it's fair use. Whether the courts will agree remains to be seen. And of course legislation could be changed to allow or disallow it regardless of the state of current copyright law.

Re: What OpenAI really wants

#172

Post by qbxk »

rmbyrro wrote: post #50
calibas wrote: post #45

Let's not romanticize business too much, they want money.

They want monopoly. Or, worse case, olygopoly. Which leads to an unrivaled, long-term money making machine and power.

if you're going to keep using the word oligopoly you should spell it correctly. from Greek oligos 'small', oligoi 'few'.

Re: What OpenAI really wants

#173

Post by tough »

cushpush wrote: post #122
swores wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's something different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader The thing being talked about doesn't have a widely-used nickname, though "Blitzscaling" is probably the closest.

Oh, I see, yeah maybe not the exact right fit is "loss leader" but it sounds good. Hmm. It's more like domination via attrition?

It's the good ol drug dealer adage just at blitzscale as gp put it.

The first hit is always free

Re: What OpenAI really wants

#174

Post by [deleted] »

gardenhedge wrote: post #160
jackleeb wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

david luan yale applied math grad (2013) ceo of startup (2011-2017) openai director then promoted to openai vp (2017-2020) google director (2020) this is 7 years out of undergrad he left google director position (7 digits/year btw) to become founder ceo of adept ai, which is now valued at $1 billion this guy is more impressive in terms of career progression (not research)

Super genius or well connected?

[deleted]

Re: What OpenAI really wants

#175

Post by tough »

stonogo wrote: post #118
mkii wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any source to this? If this were the motive, why would more VCs not require their corporates to be formed as non-profits?

Because the donors didn't know the company was going to pivot to private. If VCs did that deliberately it would be completely illegal.

sounds like a very wink wink way to go about it

Re: What OpenAI really wants

#176

Post by tough »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #113
mkii wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the regular employees don't get equity https://www.levels.fyi/blog/openai-compensation.html

Every job posting on their website states "Total compensation also includes generous equity and benefits." https://openai.com/careers

There must be equity and "equity"

Re: What OpenAI really wants

#177

Post by Legend2440 »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #132
methodical wrote: post #99

I'm sorry- perhaps the intention and wording of the article changes towards the end, but this entire thing as far as I've managed is just a thinly veiled propaganda piece that tries to make OpenAI, the team, and their product out to be some kind of equivalent to a modern day messiah. For me, and everybody I've seen or recently discussed it with, the whole ChatGPT craze has largely died out, and all we're left with is…

I’d like to recommend this interview with Emily Bender and Timnit Gebru, authors of the stochastic parrots paper. Exposing the grift behind openai. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jAHRbFetqII

Bender and Gebru are crackpots. Gebru in particular is a political activist who believes the true goal of AI is to impose eugenics through genetic engineering and create a white master race.

Re: What OpenAI really wants

#178

Post by andrei_says_ »

FiberBundle wrote: post #139
andrei_says_ wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d like to recommend this interview with Emily Bender and Timnit Gebru, authors of the stochastic parrots paper. Exposing the grift behind openai. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jAHRbFetqII

How can one actually take anything Emily Bender and Timnit Gebru say seriously?

I don’t know enough about the field to know why I should not take someone seriously.

If you listen to the interview, you’ll notice that their criticism of the openai investors and statements make a lot of sense.

Could you provide some resources which would help me build a balanced viewpoint?

Re: What OpenAI really wants

#179

Post by astrange »

flangola7 wrote: post #164
GeoAtreides wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, according to GDPR, it does matter. Also I doubt that HN has a clause in their ToS saying it's ok for anyone to scrap the site and use the data for commercial use.

The argument is it is fair use, which a ToS can't deny you.

Fair use is a US-ish legal concept; some other countries have explicit allowances for ML training for research.

Re: What OpenAI really wants

#180

Post by telotortium »

mike_hearn wrote: post #155
ugjka wrote: post #51

> Riding with Altman, I can almost hear the ringing, ambiguous chord that opens “A Hard Day’s Night”—introducing the future. Last November, when OpenAI let loose its monster hit, ChatGPT, it triggered a tech explosion not seen since the internet burst into our lives. Suddenly the Turing test was history, search engines were endangered species, and no college essay could ever be trusted. No job was safe. No scientific…

FWIW I pay for GPT-4 and it actually hallucinates much less. I feel it was trivially worth the upgrade and would sacrifice other services before ChatGPT (I'd rather get API access and use my own frontend of course but I doubt they want to let me).

You can pretty easily access GPT-4 via the API in a chat interface using SlickGPT, and that was just the first result on Google. That is pay-per-request (technically per token), not a subscription.
Post reply on HN