Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 595 posts

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#281

Post by Idiot_in_Vain »

numbers_guy wrote: post #276
lfkdev wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"OpenAI was created as an open source (which is why I named it “Open” AI), non-profit company to serve as a counterweight to Google, but now it has become a closed source, maximum-profit company effectively controlled by Microsoft. Not what I intended at all." - Elon You can think what you want of Elon, but he is in the right here.

He is, but it is weird given the history he has. He was kicked out of Paypal because he wanted to use the MS tech stack instead of LAMP at the time. Now some decades later here he is.

You've got the story wrong. He wasn't kicked out because of the stack debate, but because he sold PP to eBay (making enough money in the process to fund Tesla and SpaceX).

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#282

Post by flangola7 »

novaRom wrote: post #270
TeMPOraL wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what GP is saying is that success of OpenAI means making a lot of profit, and then triggering the AI apocalypse - which is how they become most valuable company in history both past and future .

Can you elaborate, what is "the AI apocalypse"? Is it just a symbolic metaphor or is there any scientific research behind this words? For me it's rather more unpredictable toxic environment we observe in the world currently, dominated by purely human-made destructive decisions, often based on purely animal instincts.

Without AI control loss: Permanent dictatorship by whoever controls AI.

With AI control loss: AI converts the atoms of the observable universe to maximally achieve whatever arbitrary goal it thinks it was given.

These are natural conclusions that can be drawn from the implied abilities of a superintelligent entity.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#283

Post by uoaei »

prepend wrote: post #113

I like that the corporate bullshit just keeps getting more. Google’s “don’t be evil” is many steps down from openai having open in their name. They should be called Open AI with ( not open) in small print. I argue a lot over “open source” software with non-OSI license and sometimes worry if I’m too pedantic. But I think it’s important to use terms accurately and not to confuse reality more than it already is by calli…

Corporate bullshit goes way back. There are certain systemic forces which are simply unavoidable if your company is to survive in a competitive market. One of them is the inevitable turn toward profit-making, and the kinds of pivots you need to make in order to achieve profitability.

The same forces are at play when companies decided to make "company towns" and do things like "shoot all the workers who stood up for better pay".

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#284

Post by the_only_law »

numbers_guy wrote: post #278
JeremyNT wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Based" is a catchphrase of the extremely online right. It basically means "cool" but with a subtext of "is annoying to libs/normies who just don't get it." See also "pilled."

Words become political when you start injecting politics in them. It originally meant "cool" and had no political connotations to it. It originated on 4chan. And just because some group happens to use a word more frequently doesn't suddenly turn you into a NAZI if you happen to like using the same word.

I’m not sure why people are still talking about it as some insular 4chan slang. Like much of 4chan culture, it’s spread to most of the rest of the internet by now. Hell I’ve seen “based” comments on HN.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#285

Post by justinclift »

unethical_ban wrote: post #265
93po wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI, if successful, will likely become the most valuable company in the history of the planet, both past and future.

Eh. I think that keeping it permanently closed source when it has such amazing potential for changing society is unethical bordering on evil. However, I think the technology and the datasets will trickle out, perhaps a few years behind, and in time we will have truly open "AI" algos on our home computers/phones.

So, you reckon they're effectively operating like Google then?

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#286

Post by djyaz1200 »

rippercushions wrote: post #135
mellosouls wrote: post #20

This seems an important article, if for no other reason than it brings the betrayal of its foundational claim still brazenly present in OpenAI's name from the obscurity of HN comments going back years into the public light and the mainstream. They've achieved marvellous things, OpenAI, but the pivot and long-standing refusal to deal with it honestly leaves an unpleasant taste, and doesn't bode well for the future, es…

To quote Spaceballs, they're not doing it for money, they're doing it for a shitload of money.

They are following the Residential Real Estate Developer Playbook, always name your for profit exploitation project after the beautiful organic thing you destroyed to pave the way for it...

Examples Whispering pines, Blue Heron Bay, OpenAI

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#287

Post by numbers_guy »

the_only_law wrote: post #284
numbers_guy wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words become political when you start injecting politics in them. It originally meant "cool" and had no political connotations to it. It originated on 4chan. And just because some group happens to use a word more frequently doesn't suddenly turn you into a NAZI if you happen to like using the same word.

I’m not sure why people are still talking about it as some insular 4chan slang. Like much of 4chan culture, it’s spread to most of the rest of the internet by now. Hell I’ve seen “based” comments on HN.

I shun most of the internet these days. HN and (German) reddit are the only "socials" I use. I have no clue what is happening on the wider Anglo speaking internet, especially Twitter and such is completely alien to me.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#288

Post by ly3xqhl8g9 »

prepend wrote: post #113

I like that the corporate bullshit just keeps getting more. Google’s “don’t be evil” is many steps down from openai having open in their name. They should be called Open AI with ( not open) in small print. I argue a lot over “open source” software with non-OSI license and sometimes worry if I’m too pedantic. But I think it’s important to use terms accurately and not to confuse reality more than it already is by calli…

Besides the seemingly unfriendly ClosedAI, if I were their brand designer I would rename to PlusAI, given their ChatGPT Plus.

Later Edit: apparently there is already a plus.ai start-up with some self-driving technology, just buy them out for the name.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#289

Post by rhtgrg »

uoaei wrote: post #280
ohgodplsno wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> There was no other end state for it. I agree, but I am curious and have a question for the less cynical: how could it have gone another way? How does one run a company that requires surviving in a harsh market that avoids these seeming inevitabilities? And in the case of the people running it, what made you think it would be different from their other ventures?

?

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#290

Post by uoaei »

mellosouls wrote: post #148
andrepd wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, is there anyone naive enough to have swallowed any of their trips? Corporations don't have ethical compasses, much less corporations founded by VCs aka professional salesmen.

I (parent commenter) may be naive but I actually believe the original intent was probably sincere; I suspect either political shenanigans, greed, gatekeeping or any number of other vices have come rushing with success and shedloads of money, and the original ethical stance was not accompanied by the significant moral courage needed to sustain purity under enormous pressure from either less principled stakeholders, or…

But intention has nothing to do with it!

All of the corrupting forces you listed are foreseeable, even inevitable given a certain corporate structure and position in a market. It is simply bad business, naivete, that made them think they could realistically achieve what they wanted with a company that survives by making money.

Maybe, just maybe, it's not always wise to blindly take people, in positions of power, with much to gain from your believing them, at their word...?

(And if it was true naivete, I don't understand why the consensus isn't "let the company die, a better one will take its place, these people can't run a company" a la the vaunted free market principles that imbue the community of sycophants rooting for Musk et al.)

Post reply on HN