671–680 of 1001 posts
This is all fascinating, I'm sure, but frankly, I'm getting weary of tech drama viz. reality TV masquerading as reality. Rocket Man and Orange Man have more in common than I _ever_ would have imagined if you'd asked me five years ago. Have fun y'all. I'm resisting the clickbait and going back to building things and trying to get a stable paycheck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft just bought off Mistral into no longer releasing open weights and scrubbing all references to them from their site…?
There's a "Download" button for their open models literally two clicks away from the homepage. Click "Learn more" under the big "Committing to open models" heading on the homepage. Then, because their deeplinking is bad, click "Open" in the toggle at the top. There's your download link.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going to the IRS and saying, "This is how we plan to benefit humanity and because of that, we shouldn't have to pay income tax." and then coming back later and saying, "We decided to do the opposite of what we said." is likely to create some problems.
Right, and when they decide to do the opposite they lose the tax benefit, I'm not really sure there's an argument that says they can't change their designation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it sounds like small amount in grand scheme of things..
Unless you consider it as funding in a seed round. These days, OpenAI is worth double digit billions at the very least. If Musk funded the venture as a startup, he’d have increased his net worth by at least a few billion.
It's clear that OpenAI has become something that it wasn't intended to be at it's founding. Maybe that change happened for good reasons, but the fact that there was a change is not in doubt.
This would be like suing Google for removing “Don’t be evil” from their mission statement.
If OpenAI became a non-profit with this in its charter: “resulting technology will benefit the public and the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable. The corporation is not organized for the private gain of any person" I don't think it is going to be hard to show that they are doing something very different than what they said they were going to do.
Let's say for the sake of argument that they violated their original charter, it still wouldn't give Musk standing to bring the suit. The charter is not a contract with Musk. He has no more standing than you or I.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A non-profit can have a for-profit subsidiary?
why doesn't everyone do this? take all that sweet investor money without having to give anything then have a for profit subsidiary....
This works when there's an obvious non-profit that has a monetizable product. The latter conflicts with the former, so it requires a disconnect. Meanwhile, if Apple tried to do the same, investors would look at that as obviously shady. In addition, non-profits are more heavily restricted by the government.
Lastly, you can't just "take the money" and "do what you want"; fraud, malfeasance, fiduciary responsibility (in the corporate entity), etc still exist. It's not some magic get out of jail free card.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going to the IRS and saying, "This is how we plan to benefit humanity and because of that, we shouldn't have to pay income tax." and then coming back later and saying, "We decided to do the opposite of what we said." is likely to create some problems.
I don't understand what point your example or analogy is illustrating. Can you state the point you are making? No one is alleging OpenAI committed tax fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I try to port your logic over into nuclear capacity it doesn't hold very well. Nuclear capacity is constrained, and those constraining it attempt to do so for reasons public good (energy, warfare, peace). You could argue about effectiveness, but our failure to self-annihilate seems positive testament to the strategy. Transparency does not serve us when mitigating certain forms of danger. I'm trying to remain hum…
The difference between nuclear capability and AI capability is that you can't just rent out nuclear enrichment facilities on a per-hour basis, nor can you buy the components to build such facilities at a local store. But you can train AI models by renting AWS servers or building your own. If one could just walk into a store and buy plutonium, then society would probably take a much different approach to nuclear secur…
Transparency doesn't serve us here.