61–70 of 269 posts
> He reiterated his belief in the importance of open source and said that OpenAI was considering open-sourcing GPT-3. Part of the reason they hadn’t open-sourced yet was that he was skeptical of how many individuals and companies would have the capability to host and serve large LLMs. Am I reading this right? "We're not open sourcing GPT-3 because we don't think it would be useful to anyone else"
I agree, this is so bizarre
> He reiterated his belief in the importance of open source and said that OpenAI was considering open-sourcing GPT-3. Part of the reason they hadn’t open-sourced yet was that he was skeptical of how many individuals and companies would have the capability to host and serve large LLMs. Am I reading this right? "We're not open sourcing GPT-3 because we don't think it would be useful to anyone else"
> He reiterated his belief in the importance of open source and said that OpenAI was considering open-sourcing GPT-3. Part of the reason they hadn’t open-sourced yet was that he was skeptical of how many individuals and companies would have the capability to host and serve large LLMs. Am I reading this right? "We're not open sourcing GPT-3 because we don't think it would be useful to anyone else"
> He reiterated his belief in the importance of open source and said that OpenAI was considering open-sourcing GPT-3. Part of the reason they hadn’t open-sourced yet was that he was skeptical of how many individuals and companies would have the capability to host and serve large LLMs. Am I reading this right? "We're not open sourcing GPT-3 because we don't think it would be useful to anyone else"
We don't provide nuclear weapons for everyone to keep in their basement, why would someone who believes AI is an existential risk provide their code?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, this is so bizarre
yes i also can't wrap my head around how a ceo of a billion dollar company isn't sincere in his public statements
> He reiterated his belief in the importance of open source and said that OpenAI was considering open-sourcing GPT-3. Part of the reason they hadn’t open-sourced yet was that he was skeptical of how many individuals and companies would have the capability to host and serve large LLMs. Am I reading this right? "We're not open sourcing GPT-3 because we don't think it would be useful to anyone else"
Having been recently taken aboard by the mothership I expect they'll start trying to tune out anything related to programming to push people towards co-pilot X.. It's pretty hilarious and annoying to see bing start to write code only to self censor itself after a few lines (deleting what was there! no wonder these guys love websockets and dynamic histories) Whoops!
Wait… what? Can you elaborate.
His statements on open sourcing in this interview/write-up is somewhat in conflict with his recent statement made last week in Munich https://youtu.be/uaQZIK9gvNo?t=1170 , where he explicitly said the Frontier of GPT won't be open sourced due to what they perceive as safety reasons, https://youtu.be/uaQZIK9gvNo?t=1170 (19:30 - 22:00).
I don't see the conflict. They see current models as mostly harmless, but what comes next is dangerous. It sounds a little too much sci-fi for me, but I guess he knows better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bet the NSA has dossier on every employee there as well
"Cooperate or we'll kill your family". (Just to be clear, this is a hypothetical intelligence agent saying this, not me.) I mean, it's not exactly rocket science, who wouldn't instantly fold to that?