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

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#131

Post by enumjorge »

elif wrote: post #56
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…

>they may be right that open sourcing AGI would lead to too much danger. I think this part is proving itself to be an understandable but false perspective. The hazard we are experiencing with LLM right now is not how freely accessible and powerfully truthy it's content is, but it is precisely the controls upon it which are trying to be injected by the large model operators which are generating mistrust and a poor und…

I'm not sure I buy that users are lowering their guard down just because these companies have enforced certain restricts on LLMS. This is only anecdata, but not a single person I've talked to, from highly technical to the layperson, has ever spoken about LLMs as arbiters of morals or truth. They all seem aware to some extent that these tools can occasionally generate nonsense.

I'm also skeptical that making LLMs a free-for-all will necessarily result in society developing some sort of herd immunity to bullshit. Pointing to your example, the internet started out as a wild west, and I'd say the general public is still highly susceptible to misinformation.

I don't disagree on the dangers of having a relatively small number of leaders at for-profit companies deciding what information we have access to. But I don't think the biggest issue we're facing is someone going to the ChatGPT website and assuming everything it spits out is perfect information.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#132

Post by boringg »

Jensson wrote: post #81
uncomputation wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they don't refute that they did betray it 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…

What they said there isn't their mission, that is their hidden agenda. Here is their real mission that they launched with, they completely betrayed this: > As a non-profit, our aim is to build value for everyone rather than shareholders. Researchers will be strongly encouraged to publish their work, whether as papers, blog posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with the world https://openai.com/blog/…

“Dont be evil” ring any bells?

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#133

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

uncomputation wrote: post #70
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…

> they don't refute that they did betray it 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…

The benefit is the science, nothing else matters, and having OpenAI decide what matters for everyone is repugnant.

Of course they can give us nothing, but in that case they should start paying taxes and stop claiming they're a public benefit org.

My prediction is they'll produce little of value going forward. They're too distracted by their wet dreams about all the cash they're going to make to focus on the job at hand.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#134

Post by [deleted] »

hartator wrote: post #63
fillskills wrote: post #48

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…

We all had an understanding that open in OpenAI meant open source. Come on.

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#135

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

lagt_t wrote: post #105
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.

I just snicker.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#136

Post by bbor »

andsoitis wrote: post #92
uncomputation wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they don't refute that they did betray it 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…

> everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science... everyone... except scientists and the scientific community.

Well, the Manhattan project springs to mind. They truly thought they were laboring for the public good, and even if the government let them wouldn’t have wanted to publish their progress.

Personally I find the comparison of this whole saga (deepmind -> google —> openai —> anthropic —-> mistral —-> ?) to the Manhattan project very enlightening, both of this project and our society. Instead of a centralized government project, we have a loosely organized mad dash of global multinationals for research talent, all of which claim the exact same “they’ll do it first!” motivations as always. And of course it’s accompanied by all sorts of media rhetoric and posturing through memes, 60-Minutes interviews, and (apparently) gossipy slap back blog posts.

In this scenario, Oppenheimer is clearly Hinton, who’s deep into his act III. That would mean that the real Manhattan project of AI took place in roughly 2018-2022 rather than now, which I think also makes sense; ChatGPT was the surprise breakthrough (A-bomb), and now they’re just polishing that into the more effective fully-realized forms of the technology (H-bomb, ICBMs).

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#137

Post by romwell »

repler wrote: post #89
devsda wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built.(even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes). "OpenSource". Open in open source means everyone should benefit from the fruits of source after it is built but it's totally OK to not share the source(Even though calling ourselves open is the ri…

isn’t this the old: free as in speech, not as in beer

>isn’t this the old: free as in speech, not as in beer

Hardly. Free beer and free speech do have different meanings, but freeware isn't something you have to pay for because it's "free as in beer".

In OpenAI's case, "open" isn't open as in anything normally associated with the word in the context.

Open as in private club during business hours for VIP members only is how they are trying to explain it, but understandbly, some people aren't buying it.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#138

Post by danenania »

andsoitis wrote: post #121
danenania wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

> their most powerful AI is accessible to anyone with a credit card Only 22.26% of the world's population had credit cards as of 2021.

For people without one, I think ChatGPT free version is also by far the best option available no?

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#139

Post by KTibow »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #75
Jensson wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon makes plenty of companies, him making an AI company that he was in control of doesn't look bad or strange at all.

I was talking about his public image - 'founder' of Tesla, doing everything for the love of humanity etc. It's all bullshit, and these emails show it again. He is an extraordinary businessman of course - but everything he does, he does for money and power - mostly coming from government subsides btw. Until recently though, he managed to make most believe that it was to save the planet and the humanity.

At this point most people didn't think Elon was a good guy even before these emails leaked

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#140

Post by JieJie »

devsda wrote: post #98
repler wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

isn’t this the old: free as in speech, not as in beer

"Free as in beer" : I doubt anybody is expecting OpenAI to give away their work for free or give free credits/tokens forever. Even when they do, it is no different from a free tier of any other *closed* commercial products. "Free as in speech" : I'm not sure which part of openAI's actions show commitment to this part.

It's because they were whispering.

https://openai.com/research/whisper

Post reply on HN