21–30 of 47 posts
I think the underlying challenge is not going to be easily solved.
If the ChatGPT API is indeed more powerful than `text-davinci-003`, then the predatory pricing creates a ton of incentives towards trust monopoly territory. Why would our apps struggle to put up a BLOOM or GPT-NeoX instance if it ends up more expensive?
This is possibly going to be one of the most egregious, hard-to-resist traps of our time.
But of course the page is fake/parody, so the misattribution continues. Well, it fits well to the Microsoft we knew 10-20 years ago.
I've read that the founders did honestly want to make an Open AI company when they started OpenAI, but that business model didn't work out (wow, what a surprise) so they were forced to switch to being not-Open. Regardless of whether you believe that, the "Open" part of their name has been extremely misleading for a long time. But the average person doesn't know that; they see that the company is called OpenAI and don…
I've read that the founders did honestly want to make an Open AI company when they started OpenAI, but that business model didn't work out (wow, what a surprise) so they were forced to switch to being not-Open. Regardless of whether you believe that, the "Open" part of their name has been extremely misleading for a long time. But the average person doesn't know that; they see that the company is called OpenAI and don…
To the extent that the “i” means anything at all it does stand for “internet”.
My sarcasm detector is usually better than most, but there is no way a sarcasm seeking person can tell if this is fact or fiction. Renaming OpenAI to ClosedAI actually makes sense, given they are not open. If this is parody, I think there is a good chance it's libel. Edit: I now see every link on the page redirects to the vice article.
“Acknowledgments This piece of satire was possible with the help of ChatGPT.”
I've read that the founders did honestly want to make an Open AI company when they started OpenAI, but that business model didn't work out (wow, what a surprise) so they were forced to switch to being not-Open. Regardless of whether you believe that, the "Open" part of their name has been extremely misleading for a long time. But the average person doesn't know that; they see that the company is called OpenAI and don…
But it's a lost battle, isn't it? :) We're tilting at windmills.
I thought OpenFraud would have been more fitting. They are a fraud, and openly so about it. Possibly the only thing they are open about.
Is there a word for the opposite of the euphemism treadmill, where people call ordinary things by worse and worse names trying to get an emotional reaction out of people?
Becomes? It has always be a horrible branding. Like if Shell or competitors called themselves carbonfree. An insult to everyone working on open software. But of course the page is fake/parody, so the misattribution continues. Well, it fits well to the Microsoft we knew 10-20 years ago.
Edit: note, we're also using our own technology to point out and apply for patents that include the combined usage of our exclusive technology in order to protect our creative investments.
I've read that the founders did honestly want to make an Open AI company when they started OpenAI, but that business model didn't work out (wow, what a surprise) so they were forced to switch to being not-Open. Regardless of whether you believe that, the "Open" part of their name has been extremely misleading for a long time. But the average person doesn't know that; they see that the company is called OpenAI and don…
The entire notion of "open source" will start to blur with "source-available" and even with "freemium SaaS" in the minds of an entire generation using a closed product called OpenAI to do their homework. How does OpenOffice distinguish itself from Google Docs when the word "open" means nothing? (Yes, LibreOffice, I see you there, but sadly your "fetch" is not going to happen in the English speaking world!)
One might say, "non-programmers don't need to know this" - but of course they do. They should know that a product that is truly open is guaranteed to be available so long as a community wants it to be - not at the whims of a corporation that could take away a freemium tier or revoke someone's ability to build code derived from a source-available license at will. And I fear this will take at least some wind out of the sails of a lot of incredible projects.