511–520 of 809 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if the knock-on effect is "all the artists and thinkers who contributed to the uncompensated free training set give up and stop creating new stuff"?
If an "artist" or "thinker" stops because of this, I question their motivations and those labels in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed a no brainer. The best possible outcome would be that OpenAI gets sued into oblivion (or shut down for tax fraud) as soon as possible.
So no AI for anybody? I don't see how that's better.
It's what everyone else does. The entitlement has to stop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The most surprising thing to me in this is that the non-profit will still exist. That entity will scrape the internet and train the models and claim that "it's just research" to be able to claim that all is fair-use. At this point it's not even funny anymore.
Scraping the entire internet for training data without regard for copyright or attribution - specifically to use for generative AI to produce similar content for profit. How this is being allowed to happen legally is baffling. It does suit the modus operandi of a number of American companies that start out as literally illegal/criminal operations until they get big and rich enough to pay a fine for their youthful mis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't seen any details, but isn't this a pretty straightforward way of doing it? The non-profit has had majority ownership of the for-profit subsidiary since 2019. The already-for-profit subsidiary has owned all the ChatGPT IP, all the recent models, all the employee relationships, etc etc. The cleanest way for this to work is the for-profit to just sell more shares at the $150B valuation, diluting the non-profit…
The non-profit would have to approve the scheme, and a rational non-profit would not, because it gives up any ability the non-profit has to fulfill its charter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elon has allegedly refused equity in OpenAI. He seems to want it to go back to its original mission (which isn't going to happen) or die (which isn't going to happen).
Sam Altman also allegedly had no interest in equity.
Sketchy.
This whole silicon valley attitude of fake effective altruism, "I do it for the good of humanity, not for the money (but I actually want a lot of money)" fake bullshit is so transparent and off-putting.
@sama, for the record - I am not saying making is a bad thing. Labor and talent markets should be efficient. But when you pretend to be altruistic when you are obviously not, then you come off hypocritical instead of altruistic. Sell out.
Given what Sam has done by clearing out every single person who went against him in the initial coup and completely gutting every safety related team the entire world should be on notice. If you believe what Sam Altman himself and many other researchers are saying, that AGI and ASI may well be within reach inside this decade, then every possible alarm bell should be blaring. Sam cannot be allowed to be in control of…
Personally I still believe he thinks that way (in contrast to what ~99% of HN believes) and that he does care deeply about potential existential (and other) risks of ASI. I would bet money/Manifoldbux that if he thought powerful AGI/ASI were anywhere near, he'd hit the brakes and initiate a massive safety overhaul.
I don't know why the promises to the safety team weren't kept (thus triggering their mass resignations), but I don't think it's something as silly as him becoming extremely power hungry or no longer believing there were risks or thinking the risks are acceptable. Perhaps he thought it wasn't the most rational and efficient use of capital at that time given current capabilities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scraping the entire internet for training data without regard for copyright or attribution - specifically to use for generative AI to produce similar content for profit. How this is being allowed to happen legally is baffling. It does suit the modus operandi of a number of American companies that start out as literally illegal/criminal operations until they get big and rich enough to pay a fine for their youthful mis…
It's not baffling at all. It's unprecedented and it's hugely beneficial to our species. The anti-AI stance is what is baffling to me. The path trotten is what got us here and obviously nobody could have paid people upfront for the wild experimentation that was necessary. The only alternative is not having done it. Given the path it has put as in, people either are insanely cruel or just completely detached from reali…
The anti-AI stance is what is baffling to me.
And isn’t this what basically every single scholar in the field says they want, anyway - safe, intentional, controlled deployment?
As you can tell from the above, I’m as far from being “anti-AI” or technically pessimistic as one can be — I plan to dedicate my life to its safe development. So there’s at least one counterexample for you to consider :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this food for thought? OpenAI had an unfair advantage by starting out as a non-profit.
What stopped others doing this? Or is stopping others doing this?
I'm sorry, have we gotten so far up our own asses as a profession that we no longer just excuse unethical behavior, we actually encourage it?