31–40 of 1001 posts
Seems pretty straightforward... Elon invested when they claimed to be an open-source non-profit, and clearly now are closed source and very for profit. The notion that the for profit is just a temporary means to achieve scale goals is laughable.
It's probably worth reading the post, which refutes these points.
Their evidence does a nice job of making Musk seem duplicitous, but it doesn't really refute any of his core assertions: they still have the appearance of abandoning their core mission to focus more on profits, even if they've elaborated a decent justification of why that's necessary to do. Or to put it more simply: here they explain why they had to betray their core mission. But they don't refute that they did betra…
> Elon understood the mission did not imply open-sourcing AGI. As Ilya told Elon: “As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science...”, to which Elon replied: “Yup”. Wow the most open OpenAI has ever been is when someone sue them. On the other hand, th…
[flagged]
All that's laid bare here, is the carcass of their personalities. None of this screams "I'm going to change this world", this organization is mired in politics from the start, no wonder Satya is hedging his bets. edit: grammar
But it looks 10x worse for Elon. At least for the public image, he desperately try to maintain.
> As we discussed a for-profit structure in order to further the mission, Elon wanted us to merge with Tesla or he wanted full control. > In late 2017, we and Elon decided the next step for the mission was to create a for-profit entity. Elon wanted majority equity, initial board control, and to be CEO. In the middle of these discussions, he withheld funding,
Elon Musk's antics have been utterly shameless. a) If he cared at all about altruism, humanity etc he would open-source Grok and allow anyone access to the Twitter dataset. b) He talks all about AGI in relation to Tesla but then used it as a weapon to try and extract more control over the company from investors.
I don't really understand this view honestly, why should Grok be open sourced? When was Twitter called OpenTwitter and had a similar mission statement to OpenAI?
Whether or not it’s a reasonable expectation is up for debate. But it is at least a congruent argument.
> As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in OpenAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes). That is surprisingly greedy & selfish to be boasting about in their own…
I am “GI” without the A last time I checked, and I don’t require much compute at all!