61–70 of 1001 posts
This is going to come across as contrarian view and get a lot of downvotes - OpenAI is being 'open'. Not Open Source, but Open. They are bringing AGI tech to the common person at affordable pricing. Before OpenAI, all the AI and its use cases were hidden behind closed doors at Google. By kickstarting the AI race, they have created high standards, new knowledge, and enough momentum to hold up the entire startup ecosys…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The emails clearly show that Elon had no interest on this being a non profit. Especially because he advocated for OpenAI to be absorbed by Tesla multiple times. The only reason he is suing is because xAI is dead and he needs some AI love.
He's not asking for money in the lawsuit, so what is it going to do? I thought it was for show in the first place, the goal was to hold them to their founding principles. Which are of course, pretty subjective. Top to bottom it's God complex over there and the secret justification for closed source was pretty ironic--we only found out this key unmentioned detail once the lawsuits start flying.
This is going to come across as contrarian view and get a lot of downvotes - OpenAI is being 'open'. Not Open Source, but Open. They are bringing AGI tech to the common person at affordable pricing. Before OpenAI, all the AI and its use cases were hidden behind closed doors at Google. By kickstarting the AI race, they have created high standards, new knowledge, and enough momentum to hold up the entire startup ecosys…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
If Musk wants to take the high moral ground and lecture others about openness and the importance to humanity he should start with his own actions. It seems pretty clear that altruism is a cynical marketing and PR technique for him rather than something he actually cares about.
This is going to come across as contrarian view and get a lot of downvotes - OpenAI is being 'open'. Not Open Source, but Open. They are bringing AGI tech to the common person at affordable pricing. Before OpenAI, all the AI and its use cases were hidden behind closed doors at Google. By kickstarting the AI race, they have created high standards, new knowledge, and enough momentum to hold up the entire startup ecosys…
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…
Too dangerous? Seriously? Who the fuck did/do they think they are? Jesus?
Sam Altman is going to sit there in his infinite wisdom and be the arbiter of what humanity is mature enough to handle?
The amount of kool aid that is being happily drank at openai is astounding. It’s like crypto scams but everyone has a PhD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's probably worth reading the post, which refutes these points.
It does not refute them in any way. It very openly admits them while (trying to) justify them.
This looks bad for OpenAI (although it's been pretty obvious that they are far from open for a long time). 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…
Do you mind elaborating why you think it looks bad for OpenAI? I didn't see anything that diminishes their importance as an entity or hurts them in respect to this lawsuit or their reputation. In their internal emails from 2016 they explain what they mean by open.
If we agree it's a for profit company, and all this 'Open' stuff is just PR, then yes - it's not looking bad. It's just business.
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.
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…
They do. They say:
> 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...”
Whether you agree with this is a different matter but they do state that they did not betray their mission in their eyes.