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

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#191

Post by rifty »

The manner in which they became for-profit does not feel like an exact comparison to Elon thinking that they should become private to be competitive. For example, merging with Tesla isn't the same path the non-profit OpenAI went even if the end state is similar.

Though I think the blog post will probably achieve its messaging goals of diminishing Elon's character to their own public status... "Yeah you think we suck, but it would be no tangible difference to you if Elon had run it, so you should know he sucks too."

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#192

Post by boringuser2 »

bbor wrote: post #136
andsoitis wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

They literally created weapons of mass destruction.

Do you think they thought they were good guys because you watched a Hollywood movie?

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#193

Post by chatmasta »

WatchDog wrote: post #151
matt_heimer wrote: post #100

If you are going to simulate blacking out email addresses maybe don't preserve spacing.

I presume they persevered the spacing to avoid any accusations of being misleading as to the redacted information. This kind of in place redaction seems to be the typical way that documents are submitted to courts, or at least it was the same way that the emails Elon provided were redacted[0]. [0]: https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1763633741807960498

Surely it would be more effective to reduce every censorship bar to 1 character width.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#194

Post by bevekspldnw »

electriclove wrote: post #65
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…

Google is actually the one that published the paper that made all this possible (just like they have done with tons of other breakthroughs) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_Is_All_You_Need

Papers aren’t products, and most of the authors - who did the actual work - are long gone.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#195

Post by sroussey »

nonethewiser wrote: post #124
elif wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> 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 understanding of what these models are useful for. This slices through a lot of double speak about AI safety. At the same time, people use “safety” to mean n…

What are you talking bout? It’s been deeply running google search for many years.

And AI for electrical grids and factories has also been a thing for a couple years.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#196

Post by Spivak »

Jensson wrote: post #38
LatticeAnimal wrote: post #18

> 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 (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes). That is surprisingly greedy & selfish to be boasting about in their own…

Yeah, they are basically saying that they called themselves OpenAI as a recruitment strategy but they never planned to be open after the initial hires.

Why do tech people keep falling for this shtick? It's happened over and over and over with open source becoming open core becoming source available being becoming source available with closed source bits.

How society organizes property rights makes it damn near impossible to make anything commons in a way that can't in practice be reversed when folks see dollar signs. Owner is a non nullable field.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#197

Post by chjj »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #182
chjj wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not making a legal argument.

Oh! In that case, let me ask: where have you ever seen DKIM signatures being provided on a public blog post/press release?

Nowhere, and I criticize it every time. I've even gone to the lengths of trying to find DKIM keys for published emails in the past[1].

But at least those emails were un-redacted. To spell that out for you: in a highly-charged, highly-contentious political setting, emails were published un-redacted and theoretically verifiable with DKIM. No such possibility exists for OpenAI's blog post.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24780798#24785123

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#198

Post by afarviral »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #118
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…

> To some extent, they may be right that open sourcing AGI would lead to too much danger. That's clearly self-serving claptrap. It's a leveraging of a false depiction of what AGI will look like (no ones really knows, but it's going to be scary and out of control!) with so much gatekeeping and subsequent cash they can hardly stop salivating. No strong AI (there is no evidence AGI is even possible) is not going to be a…

That makes little intuitive sense to me. Help me understand why increasing the number of entities which possess a potential-weapon is beneficial for humanity?

If the US had developed a nuclear armament and no other country had would that truly have been worse? What if Russia had beat the world to it first? Maybe I'll get there on my own if I keep following this reasoning. However there is nothing clear cut about it, my strongest instincts are only heuristics I've absorbed from somewhere.

What we probably want with any sufficiently destructive potential-weapon are the most responsible actors to share their research while stimulating research in the field with a strong focus on safety and safeguarding. I see some evidence of that.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#200

Post by sroussey »

TheCapeGreek wrote: post #173
sroussey wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You might find me there. ;)

But, my God, the some of the nonprofit ceos I’ve known make the for-profit ceos look pathetic and cheap.

Post reply on HN