751–760 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assume good intentions and nothing of substance being hidden: Is there any way to be transparent here that would have satisfied you or are you essentially asking for them to just keep to themselves or something else?
Oh, honey. Never assume good intentions when lawyers are involved
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those AI generated photos are from a Twitter/X parody account @Trump_History45 , not from the Trump campaign as the BBC mistakenly (or misleadingly) claim. They specifically said who they came from, and that it wasn't the Trump campaign. They even had a photo of one of the creators, whom they interviewed in that specific piece I linked to, and tried to get interviews with others.
Look at the BBC article... Headline: "Trump supporters target black voters with faked AI images" @Trump_History45 does appear to be a Trump supporter. However, he is also a parody account and states as such on his account. The BBC article goes full-on with the implication that the AI images were produced with the intent to target black voters. The BBC is expert at "lying by omission"; that is, presenting a version of…
I won't deny the BBC has ofteb very biased reporting for a publically funded source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you trust a for profit corporation with the codification?
Call me a capitalist, but I trust several of them competing with each other under the enforcement of laws that impose consequences on them if they produce and distribute content that violates said laws.
The big-tech oligarchs are playing catch-up. Some of them, like Meta with Llama, are breaking their own rules to do it by releasing open source versions of at least some of their tools. Others like Mistral go purely for the open source play and might achieve a regional dominance that doesn't exist with most big web technologies these days. And all this is just a superficial glance at the market.
Honestly I think capitalism has screwed up more than it has helped around the world but this free-for-all is going to make great products and great history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those AI generated photos are from a Twitter/X parody account @Trump_History45 , not from the Trump campaign as the BBC mistakenly (or misleadingly) claim. They specifically said who they came from, and that it wasn't the Trump campaign. They even had a photo of one of the creators, whom they interviewed in that specific piece I linked to, and tried to get interviews with others.
Look at the BBC article... Headline: "Trump supporters target black voters with faked AI images" @Trump_History45 does appear to be a Trump supporter. However, he is also a parody account and states as such on his account. The BBC article goes full-on with the implication that the AI images were produced with the intent to target black voters. The BBC is expert at "lying by omission"; that is, presenting a version of…
I won't deny the BBC has very biased reporting for a publically funded source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those AI generated photos are from a Twitter/X parody account @Trump_History45 , not from the Trump campaign as the BBC mistakenly (or misleadingly) claim. They specifically said who they came from, and that it wasn't the Trump campaign. They even had a photo of one of the creators, whom they interviewed in that specific piece I linked to, and tried to get interviews with others.
Look at the BBC article... Headline: "Trump supporters target black voters with faked AI images" @Trump_History45 does appear to be a Trump supporter. However, he is also a parody account and states as such on his account. The BBC article goes full-on with the implication that the AI images were produced with the intent to target black voters. The BBC is expert at "lying by omission"; that is, presenting a version of…
I won't deny the BBC has often very biased reporting for a publically funded source.
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…
I don't think whatever ideology happens to be fashionable at the moment, be it ahistorical portraits or whatever else, is remotely relevant compared to who has the power and whom it is exercised on. The "safety" proponents very clearly get that.
Regardless of who is right here, I think the enormous egos at play make OpenAI the last company I’d want to develop AGI. First Sam vs. the board, now Elon vs. everyone … it’s pretty clear this company is not in any way being run for the greater good. It’s all ego and money with some good science trapped underneath.
If AGI is as transformative as its proponents make it out to be, would it both attract and create those enormous egos though?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> More controls make LLMs more trustworthy for many people, not less. The Snafu at Goog suggests a need for improved controls, not 0 controls. To whom? And, as hard as this is to test, how sincerely? > The American culture wars are not global. (They have their own culture wars). Do people from places with different culture wars trust these American-culture-war-blinkered LLMs more or less than Americans do?
- To me, the teams I work with and everyone handling content moderation. / Rant / Oh God please let these things be bottle necked. The job was already absurd, LLMs and GenAI are going to be just frikking amazing to deal with. Spam and manipulative marketing has already evolved - and thats with bounded LLMs. There are comments that look innocuous, well written, but the entire purpose is to low key get someone to do a…
After reading the rest of your rant (I hope you keep it) ... maybe free thought and culture aren't what LLMs are for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The really depressing thing is that the board anticipated exactly this type of outcome when they were going "capped profit" and deliberately restructured the company with the specific goal of preventing this from happening... yet here we are. It's difficult to walk away without concluding that "profit secondary" companies are fundamentally incompatible with VC funding. Would that be a pessimistic take? Are there bett…
I think the fact that a number of top people were willing to actually leave OpenAI and found Anthropic explicitly because OpenAI had abandoned their safety focus essentially proves that this wasn’t a thing that had to happen. If different leaders had been in place things could have gone differently.
If the corporation fails to do what it was created to do, then I view that as a structural failure. A building may collapse due to a broken pillar, but that doesn't mean we should conclude it is the pillar's fault that the building collapsed -- surely buildings should be able to withstand and recover from a single broken pillar, no?
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…
Great analysis, thanks for taking the time. here they explain why they had to betray their core mission. But they don't refute that they did betray it. Although they don’t spend nearly as much time on it, probably because it’s an entirely intuitive argument without any evidence, is that they could be “open” as in “for the public good” while still making closed models for profit. Aka the ends justify the means. It’s a…
its because it is a badly argued joke. The founding charter is just that, a charter not a contract:
> the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable
There are two massive caveats in that statement. wide enough to drive a stadium through.
Elon is just pissed, and is throwing lawyers at it in the hopes that they will fold (A lot of cases are settled out of court, because its potentially significantly cheaper, and less risky.)
The problem for Musk is that he is fighting with company who also is rich enough to afford good lawyers for a long time.
Also, he'll have to argue that he has materially been hurt by this change, again really hard.
last of all, its a company, founding agreements are not law, and often rarely contracts.