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

171–180 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#171

Post by CuriouslyC »

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 mean, if you're using LLM as a stand-in for multi-modal models, and you're not disallowing things like a self-referential processing loop, a memory extraction process, etc, it's not so far fetched. There might be multiple databases and a score of worker processes running in the background, but the core will come from a sequence model being run in a loop.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#172

Post by lern_too_spel »

mlsu wrote: post #93
BoiledCabbage wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this shows Elon doesn't care jackshit about the lack of openness from OpenAI. He's just mad only that he walked away from a monumental success. Yup he's pretty transparently lying here. He committed to fund for $1B dollars. Then when they wouldn't make him CEO and/or roll the company into Tesla he refused his commitment after paying out only 4% of it. Claimed the company would fail and only he could save them (agai…

Whether it is Elon or Altman that controls it has nothing to do with how open or not openAI is. And it has become very clear that OpenAI is nothing but Microsoft in a trenchcoat. No matter his motives, I applaud this lawsuit. Who cares if his talk doesn't match his action? His action, here, is good.

Musk's lawsuit is for breach of contract, but it looks like Musk agreed with what OpenAI did, which means the lawsuit will fail.

From the complaint:

> Together with Mr. Brockman, the three agreed that this new lab: (a) would be a non-profit developing AGI for the benefit of humanity, not for a for-profit company seeking to maximize shareholder profits; and (b) would be open-source, balancing only countervailing safety considerations, and would not keep its technology closed and secret for proprietary commercial reasons (The “Founding Agreement”).

The biggest beneficiary of this lawsuit is Google, which now gets more runway to bumble along to victory.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#173

Post by TheCapeGreek »

sroussey wrote: post #32
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…

I guess Mozilla as well then.

Well yeah, dive into the comments on any Firefox-related HN post and you'll see the same complaint about the organization structure of Mozilla, and its hindrance of Firefox's progress in favour of fat CEO salaries and side products few people want.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#174

Post by danenania »

bugglebeetle wrote: post #163
danenania wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those are anywhere close to as easy for the average person to access as OpenAI’s offerings. And none are as good as GPT-4 afaik. 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.

There is no way to reconcile their founding statements and principles with what they’re doing now. They don’t even publish legitimate research papers any longer and barely even try to defend themselves as aligning with their prior mission.

I think in their minds, their mission has always been to make AI widely available. It seems like they initially thought open source and open research were a viable path to achieving that mission, but later they changed their minds. I get why people are upset about that pivot, but considering they single-handedly brought AI out of the research lab and into the mainstream, it seems hard to argue that they were wrong.

In any case, sticking to the point of this discussion, there is no indication of any kind that they don’t intend to make AI widely available. It’s like saying McDonald’s doesn’t intend to make hamburgers widely available.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#175

Post by shrimpx »

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 Open in openAI means that [insert generic mission statement that applies to every business on the planet].”

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#176

Post by Centigonal »

carlossouza wrote: post #108
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.

The online versions of Microsoft office apps are free. What if they renamed those to... OpenOffice?

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#177

Post by [deleted] »

pama wrote: post #101
TheAlchemist wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#178

Post by ergocoder »

The anthropic guy must feel like they have made the best decision.

I love the drama. It is very entertaining. I'm glad OpenAI decided to start as a non profit. I feel like they will never be able to get away with it. The issue will keep lingering.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#179

Post by tailspin2019 »

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…

I don’t have a horse in this race but I’d definitely like to see this viewpoint discussed more.

The open source angle probably matters more to the HN audience but it’s hard to argue that OpenAI hasn’t “opened up access to AI” to a vast global audience.

And that’s not to say that the means by which they’ve done so doesn’t still need some scrutiny.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#180

Post by CuriouslyC »

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…

So, open as in "we'll sell to anyone" except that at first they didn't want to sell to the military and they still don't sell to people deemed "terrorists." Riiiiiight. Pure bullshit.

Open could mean the science, the code/ip (which includes the science) or pure marketing drivel. Sadly it seems that it's the latter.

Post reply on HN