141–150 of 1001 posts
> 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…
really makes the "Open" sound more sinister, like they're opening the ai.
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?
I guess Sam Altman finally somehow found Ilya Sutskever after saying he didn't know where he was and whether he was still working at OpenAI [1] [1] https://officechai.com/startups/sam-altman-is-unsure-if-ilya... .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does not refute them in any way. It very openly admits them while (trying to) justify them.
"In late 2017, we and Elon decided the next step for the mission was to create a for-profit entity."
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…
The fact that they slinging mud at each other just proves the mutual criticism though, and provides an edifying spectacle for the rest of us.
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.
Yes, Meta, Mistral, Allen AI, and many others.
There are many arguments one can make against OpenAI. I just don’t see how “they don’t want to make AI widely available” makes any sense at all. A world where OpenAI never existed would clearly be a world where AI is far less accessible to the average person.
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 redefined the open in OpenAI in an almost Orwellian way.
Just like Google's "Do no evil" *only applicable to certain definitions of evil
Now it's some kind of "Kiss the ring and have respect for the hand that feeds you" or something.
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
You can start a little mom-and-pop store and get plenty of politics. No surprise a billion(s)-dollar company has politics. It's everywhere. I'm not going to claim that it's their openness that is allowing us to see it here, but in some companies it spills out in the open, in others it stays within the family, but there's always politics!
See Apple in the 90's for instance.