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

OpenAI and Elon Musk

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#101

Post by pama »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #68
pama wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bad as to the credibility of the image they tried to sell in the beginning. 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.

I hear people complain about the 'Open' a lot recently, but I'm not sure I understand this type of concern. Publications, for companies, are always PR and recruitment efforts (independent of profit or nonprofit status). I recall that OpenAI were very clear about their long term intentions and plans for how to proceed since at least February of 2019 when they announced GPT2 and withheld the code and weights for about 9 months because of concerns with making the technology immediately available to all. In my own mind, they've been consistent in their behavior for the last 5 years, probably longer though I didn't care much about their early RL-related recruitment efforts.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#102

Post by furyofantares »

cmilton wrote: post #34

What's with the redactions? Would that information change any of the context? I understand redacting an email address, but hmmm. This doesn't scream transparency, or open, by any means.

My read on some of the redaction is they appear to be someone on Elon's side of things who's not currently suing OpenAI. It can be hard to guess what redactions are though. They're redacted.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#104

Post by Vecr »

idatum wrote: post #24
Reubend wrote: post #13

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…

> We realized building AGI will require far more resources than we’d initially imagined So the AGI existential threat to humanity has diminished?

Not if their near-term funding rounds go through. So much for "compute overhang".

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#105

Post by lagt_t »

Reubend wrote: post #13

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…

Everytime they say LLMs are the path to AGI, I cringe a little.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#107

Post by danenania »

bugglebeetle wrote: post #71
andsoitis wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think Musk’s lawsuit is without merit If it does not have merit, why does OpenAI feel compelled to write this post? Unless they know or at least fear that the lawsuit has merit.

Public relations. What Musk has said about OpenAI is true: they abandoned their mission and sold themselves off to Microsoft in pursuit of profit, and have no intention of making the technology (or its rewards) widely available to all. They can’t counter any of these claims credibly, but can still (correctly) paint the messenger as arguing in bad faith to diminish their impact. Being right about all of this doesn’t a…

“have no intention of making the technology (or its rewards) widely available to all”

Has any organization done more to make AI widely available to all? I can’t think of one. True, they’re not making the source code available. True, they’re making tons of money off it. But their most powerful AI is accessible to anyone with a credit card.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#108

Post by carlossouza »

magnio wrote: post #6

> 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…

> 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...

Based on this line of reasoning, ANY company that builds any given technology and intends to share (sell) it to the world, but not divulge how it was done, can call itself OpenWhatever.

They are clearly saying that the word “Open” in their name means nothing.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#109

Post by treme »

threeseed wrote: post #8

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.

ah yes, he should be shamed for being a major force behind accelerating adoption of eletric cars by a few years minimum.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#110

Post by baking »

mikeyouse wrote: post #95
baking wrote: post #28

> Elon said we should announce an initial $1B funding commitment to OpenAI. In total, the non-profit has raised less than $45M from Elon and more than $90M from other donors. This is not reflected in their 990's. They claim $20 million in public support and $70 million in "other income" which is missing the required explanation. Also, why are none of the current board members of OpenAI included as authors here? Is th…

A bunch of what you wrote isn't accurate.. Here's the 2020 990 which shows the first 5 years of the org's existence (including the time at question for this suit): https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/810861541_202012_990_... Page 15 is Schedule A Pt 2 which shows the total contributions by year. They did indeed raise ~$133M over that time frame. Row 5 shows the contributions from any 1 person who contributed more…

I think I screwed up. It has been a while, but it looks like I misread Part II, Section B, Line 10 as $70 million, not $70,000. Let me check the previous years to see if I'm thinking of something else. Thanks for double-checking this.

I know they got $20 million from Open Philanthropy which qualifies as public support, so I am still wondering about the other $70 million, but it is not the smoking gun that I thought it was.

It has to be made up of donations from individuals under $2.6 million or from other public charities, but not private foundations.

Post reply on HN