Elon Musk sues Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and OpenAI [pdf]

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 01, 2024, 10:30 PM UTC

treesciencebot wrote: post #720

vineyardmike wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not seeing Mistral Large as an open source model now has a bitter taste to it. A company needs a product to sell. If they give away everything, they have nothing to sell. This was surely always the plan. (1) They can give away the model but sell an API - but they can’t serve a model as cheap as Goog/Msft/Amzn who have better unit economics on their cloud and better pricing on GPUs (plus custom inference chips). (2)…

> (1) They can give away the model but sell an API - but they can’t serve a model as cheap as Goog/Msft/Amzn who have better unit economics on their cloud and better pricing on GPUs (plus custom inference chips). Which has a simple solution, release the model weights with a license which doesn't let anyone to commercially host them (like AGPL-ish) without your permission. That is what Stability.ai does it.

Post by notahacker » Fri, Mar 01, 2024, 10:34 PM UTC

brookst wrote: post #730

starbugs wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the tech really is dangerous then being more closed arguably is in the public's best interest If that was true, then they shouldn't have started off like that to begin with. You can't have it both ways. Either you are pursuing your goal to be open (as the name implies) or the way you set yourself up was ill-suited all along.

…unless you believe that the world can change and people’s opinions and decisions should change based on changing contexts and evolving understandings. When I was young I proudly insisted that all I ever wanted to eat was pizza. I am very glad that 1) I was allowed to evolve out of that desire, and 2) I am not constantly harangued as a hypocrite when I enjoy a nice salad.

Post by neximo64 » Fri, Mar 01, 2024, 10:35 PM UTC

troupe wrote: post #438

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.

Post by tw04 » Fri, Mar 01, 2024, 10:35 PM UTC

gary_0 wrote: post #621

tw04 wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like nuclear weapons? The whole “security through obscurity doesn’t work” is absolute nonsense. It absolutely works and there are countless real world examples. What doesn’t work is relying on that as your ONLY security.

I'm not sure if nuclear weapons are a good example. In the 1940's most of the non-weapons-related nuclear research was public (and that did make certain agencies nervous). That's just how scientists tend to do things. While the US briefly had unique knowledge about the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the basics could be easily worked out from first principles, especially once schoolchildren could pick up an up-to-dat…

Post by arandomusername » Fri, Mar 01, 2024, 10:36 PM UTC

croes wrote: post #611

sema4hacker wrote: post #281

A NY Times article says "Though Mr. Musk has repeatedly criticized OpenAI for becoming a for-profit company, he hatched a plan in 2017 to wrest control of the A.I. lab from Mr. Altman and its other founders and transform into a commercial operation that would work alongside his other companies, including the electric carmaker Tesla, and make use of their increasingly powerful supercomputers, people familiar with his…

Same with Musk,'s warning about the dangers of AI but then he released one too.