81–90 of 163 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the crucial difference is that OpenAI doesn't have an iPhone, right?
They have a huge computing platform and a brand name
The brand name doesn't count for anything unless you, as an application developer, decide to assign some value to it.
Looks neat, but note that OpenAI is basically an App Store model - whatever you make with it cannot be shown to more than five people unless OpenAI has reviewed and explicitly approved your project. And their usage guidelines are pretty narrow - "open-ended chatbots" are explicitly disallowed, for example. > https://beta.openai.com/docs/going-live > https://beta.openai.com/docs/usage-guidelines/use-case-guide...
Use GPT Neo. Use Huggingfaces. Use colab or bare metal or any cloud provider. Open AI's offering is bringing literally nothing to the table that doesn't exist already. Their publications are good (albeit missing important details), but everyone working there was publishing anyway so it's not like this research wouldn't happen without Open AI existing. But that research probably would be more open without Open AI.
How full of yourself do you have to be to say something like, "Oh, we can't share this knowledge because it's too dangerous"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chatting with random people on the internet is much more unpredictable Not particularly the best comparison, we are talking here about applications and services which we sell and we have to make sure that we have the confidence that we can trust our own systems and the customer can rely on our word and engineering skills. Right now we are still in the primordial soup of AI. As long as we do not have proper methods…
Please see my other response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29576981 As a summary, generating content isn't new and just increases your moderation load. AI is not something "special". It's just software, at the end.
I don't need to do this discussion, this is basic introductory education and consent in University courses about AI and especially about system engineering verification and certification, which is required for most customers on a large scale and mission critical purposes.
Looks neat, but note that OpenAI is basically an App Store model - whatever you make with it cannot be shown to more than five people unless OpenAI has reviewed and explicitly approved your project. And their usage guidelines are pretty narrow - "open-ended chatbots" are explicitly disallowed, for example. > https://beta.openai.com/docs/going-live > https://beta.openai.com/docs/usage-guidelines/use-case-guide...
Yea, this made me look to alternatives and I mainly use Huggingface instead. I don't want to wake up one day and learn that a side project got rejected by a higher power and I have to write a HN post to get my account unlocked.
The interesting thing is that this changes as soon as they gain a competitor or genuinely open alternative, as at that point getting an account blocked wouldn't mean all is lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re not wrong. It’s intentionally deceptive and exploitation of open source culture by naming it this way.
OpenGL, OpenCL, OpenVG, OpenXR, none of them are open source . Seems like that's what they were going for to me
In addition, aren't they all open and royalty-free — i.e. the closest equivalent to open source?
In contrast, OpenAI does directly produce software.
There are arguments to be made that AI shouldn't be open, but the name of the company is misleading.
Looks neat, but note that OpenAI is basically an App Store model - whatever you make with it cannot be shown to more than five people unless OpenAI has reviewed and explicitly approved your project. And their usage guidelines are pretty narrow - "open-ended chatbots" are explicitly disallowed, for example. > https://beta.openai.com/docs/going-live > https://beta.openai.com/docs/usage-guidelines/use-case-guide...
I don't know why anyone is still paying attention to Open AI's offerings. Use GPT Neo. Use Huggingfaces. Use colab or bare metal or any cloud provider. Open AI's offering is bringing literally nothing to the table that doesn't exist already. Their publications are good (albeit missing important details), but everyone working there was publishing anyway so it's not like this research wouldn't happen without Open AI ex…
Every time I hear someone say this, I always think, "Dangerous... to whom?"
Anyone else just getting this message when they try and sign up?
(I did verify my phone number and there seems to be no way to do anything else now)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The following is an entertaining short story: Once upon a time, there was" Everything else that follows is GPT-3.
It's guided by users right? I.e. every line was hand-chosen by a human, from a bunch of generated options?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like a difficult topic, I remember when the first GPTs came out everyone was worried how it would flood the internet with fake news (first example I could find: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19833094 ). This review process seems like a reasonable solution to this problem, and personally I can't think of a better one, can you?
It is just delaying the inevitable, though, right? The problem of a flood of fake spam content is still not too far into the future, just not going to be powered by OpenAI specifically.
And one can choose not to be one of those folks who bring forth the supposed inevitable result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, unless you’re one of those people who considers anything less than human-level AI to not count.
What if it is not artificial and only human level ai in a sense that it's run by mechanical Turks which answer the prompts ?
> Suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in constructing a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker.
> Searle then supposes that he is in a closed room and has a book with an English version of the computer program, along with sufficient papers, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. Searle could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program's instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows, says Searle, that he would do so as well, simply by running the program manually.