41–50 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does this mean Microsoft isn't going to sue their customers for patent infringement?
Why would you say this?
> Researchers will be strongly encouraged to publish their work, whether as papers, blog posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with the world.
I'm not sure if it's ever been publicly elaborated on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Precisely my point. If they could put a model as large as GPT-3 into production (at a reasonable price to the consumer), wouldn’t that be a 10x improvement?
GPT-3 isn't a 10X improvement. (At least from everything we know so far.)
Since the demos on this page use zero-shot learning and the used model has a 2020-05-03 timestamp, that implies this API is using some form of GPT-3: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23345379 (EDIT: the accompanying blog post confirms that: https://openai.com/blog/openai-api/ ) Recently, OpenAI set the GPT-3 GitHub repo to read-only: https://github.com/openai/gpt-3 Taken together, this seems to imply that GPT-3 w…
But since the resources required for training such a model are only available to well-funded entities, it seems like offering the model as an API while releasing the original source-code is the best practical method of getting the model into the hands of people who would otherwise not have access?
Easy access to the 175B model would indeed be valuable, but it's entirely possible they're using a smaller variant for this API.
Whoa -- Speech to bash commands? That's a pretty novel idea to me with my limited awareness of NLP. I could see this same idea in a lot of technical applications -- Provisioning cloud infrastructure, creating a database query.. Very cool!
Is OpenAI just a submarine so the tech giants can do unethical research without taking blame??? Its textbook misdirection, nonprofit and "Open" in the name, hero-esque mission statement. How do you make the mental leap from "we're non-profit and we won't release things too dangerous" to "JK we're for-profit and now that GPT is good enough to use its for sale!!". You don't. This was the plan the whole time.
GPT and facial recognition used for shady shit? Blame OpenAI. Not the consortium of tech giants that directly own it. It may just be a conspiracy theory but something smells very rotten to me. Like OpenAI is a simple front so big names can dodge culpability for their research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine they’re considering offering GPT-3, which would be cost prohibitive to fine-tune for most people. I also I heard inference was too slow to be practical. Perhaps they have some FPGA magic up their Microsoft sleeves.
Nobody is putting these huge models in production, even the smaller transformer models are still too expensive to run for most use cases. With the way the field is moving, GPT-3 will be old news in a month, when more advances are made and open sourced.
1) (on cluelessness) If Sama/GDB were as smart as they claim to be, would they not have realized it is impossible to run a non profit research lab which is effectively trying "to compete" with DeepMind.
2) (on disingenuity) The original openAI charter made OpenAI an organization that was trying to save the world from nefarious actors and uses of AI. Who were such users? To me it seemed like, entities with vastly superior compute resources who were using the latest AI technologies for presumably profit oriented goals. There are few organizations in the world like that, namely FAANG, and their international counterparts. Originally OpenAI sounded incredibly appealing to me, and a lot of us here. But if their leadership had more forethought, they would perhaps not have made this promise. But given the press, and the money they accrued, it has now become impossible to go back on this charter. So the only way to get themselves out of the whole they dug into was by making it into a for profit research lab. And by commercializing perhaps a more superior version of the tools Microsoft, Google and the other large AI organizations are commercializing, is OpenAI any different from them?
How do we know OpenAI will not be the bad actor that is going to abuse AI given their self interest?
All we have is their charter to go by. But given how they are constantly "re-inventing" their organizational structure, what grounds do we have to trust them?
Do we perhaps need a new Open OpenAI? One that we can actually trust? One that is actually transparent with their research process? One that actually releases their code, and papers and has no interest in commercializing that? Oh, that's right, we already have that -- research labs at AI focused schools like MIT, Stanford, BAIR and CMU.
I am quite wary of this organization, and I would encourage other HN readers to think more careful about what they are doing here.