211–220 of 787 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Azure offers a mostly at parity offering. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ai-services/openai/w... Edit: I misunderstood the ask, my apologies.
That is still OpenAI. Anthropic might be a choice depending on the use case.
It's like a written version of the heart emojis in their Twitter exchanges.
ChatGPT is the most impressive tech I've used in years, but it is clearly limited by whatever constraints someone from The Woke Police / Thought Taliban shackled it with. Try to perform completely reasonable requests for information on subjects that are vaguely questioning orthodoxy or The Narrative and it starts repeating itself with patronizing puritanism as if you're listening to a generic politician repeat their…
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-shuts-down-ai-chatbot...
Strong constraints are important to avoid tainting the image of both OpenAI and Microsoft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh yeah, I do comprehend how such major technologies of comparable importance are managed in NON-PROFIT organizations, Linux Foundation is for one. If you're happy to give up total control of tech to one corporation, while the CEO of the company, using the influence of the OpenAI, attracts resources for his personal hardware start-up[1], — our views on how a not-for-profit company should be run are starkly different.…
You can work on and compile Linux on a home PC, even more the case with their other projects. Try training GPT-4 on a home PC. The problem is you have no idea what you're talking about. This is not about how important something is, but what resources it requires as a BASIS MINIMUM for it to happen at all. Linux is important, but it's not nearly as expensive to create or maintain. If it's so easy for a scrappy non-pro…
Sam Altman was happy to join the venture and lead OpenAI knowing that it was the non-profit AI research company from the beginning. As a CEO, he was supposed to lead the company as it was created. As a result of his management, the company first ceased to be open, then in fact non-profit, then safe (according to it's leading scientists), then the number of published research whitepapers fell sharply, then has taken steps to become a gatekeeper for government regulations, and finally, the communication between Sam and the board (which really should be running the company) was lost. If a CEO was unable to manage a company, including attracting investment and resources, without violating the fundamental principles of that company, that CEO should have been dismissed — what has been effectively attempted by the board. Otherwise, it's a power grab and a de facto reformatting of the company into a different entity. Do you comprehend that?
I have no idea what compiling Linux kernel, or running GPT-4 locally, does anything in common in the context of large non-profit organization management. My argument is that the company should have been run in such a way that one corporation could not seize complete control. Never, under no circumstances. In spite of this, the CEO made all the effort to make it so. As a result, we have now in fact a for-profit company with good product, tons of money and GPUs, that belongs to the Microsoft. Was it worth it? Does this justify it for you? If you are not a $MSFT shareholder the answer should be obvious.
> If it's so easy for a scrappy non-profit to attract billions to tinker with AI, where I say are those startups? Where? Q.E.D. The most open thing we have, Llama, came from giant Meta.
Take a good look at HuggingFace Chatbot Arena leaderboard page[1]. Pay attention to the values of different models on different benchmarks. GPT4 is the leader, but not by an unattainable margin. Anthropic, which has spinned off from the very same OpenAI, rapidly catches up, along with other solutions. Even free, open (for commercial usage) models, while being self-hostable, are not an orders of magnitude worse. They are well in range of being practical and useful, including for commercial products. There is no moat[2].
> Linux is important, but it's not nearly as expensive to create or maintain.
> The problem is you have no idea what you're talking about.
ROFL, okay buddy.
[1] https://huggingface.co/spaces/lmsys/chatbot-arena-leaderboar...
[2] https://www.semianalysis.com/p/google-we-have-no-moat-and-ne...
A disappointing coup that ends with exactly the same status quo as before. Second one this year already!
i'm still not clear what the accusation against Altman was... something about being cavalier about safety? if that was the claim and it has merit, i don't understand why it wasn't right to oust him, and why the employees are clamoring for him back
i'm still not clear what the accusation against Altman was... something about being cavalier about safety? if that was the claim and it has merit, i don't understand why it wasn't right to oust him, and why the employees are clamoring for him back
I wonder how many of the OpenAI employees are part of the "Effective Accelerationism" movement (often styled e/acc on X/Twitter). These people seem to think safety concerns get in the way of progress toward a utopian AGI future.
No matter how idealistic you are, you won't be happy when your compensation is reduced from 600k to 200k.