12 ms·

Congrats on the fundraise Greg and team! Does this mean that OpenAI may not disclose progress, papers with details, and/or open source code as much as in the p

Congrats on the fundraise Greg and team! Does this mean that OpenAI may not disclose progress, papers with details, and/or open source code as much as in the past? In other words, what proprietary advantage will Microsoft gain when licensing new tech from OpenAI? I understand that keeping some innovations private may help commercialization, which may help raise more funds for OpenAI, getting us to AGI faster, so my opinion is that could plausibly make sense.

gdb 7y ago
We'll still release quite a lot, and those releases won't look any different from the past. > I understand that keeping some innovations private may help commercialization, which may help raise more funds for OpenAI, getting us to AGI faster, so my opinion is that could plausibly make sense. That's exactly how we think about it. We're interested in licensing some technologies in order to fund our AGI efforts. But even if we keep technology private for this reason, we still might be able to eventually publish it.
- DSingularity 7y ago
  Eventually open ai?
  - oaeide 7y ago
    Maybe eventually openAI
    - apetrov 7y ago
      maybe eventually open maybe ai
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    "maybe" eventually openAI
  - ru999gol 7y ago
    does anyone serious (non-encumbered) actually believe that?
  - marvin 7y ago
    I thought from day one that the name «OpenAI» would at best be a slight misnomer, and at worst indicative of a misguided approach. If AGI is close to being achieved, sharing key details of the approach to any actors at all could trigger a Manhattan Project-type global arms race where safety was compromised and the whole thing became insanely risky for the future of humanity. Glad to see that the team is taking a pragmatic safety-first approach here, as well as towards the near-term economical realities of funding a very expensive project to ensure the fastest possible progress. In the early days of OpenAI, my thoughts were that the project had good intentions, but a misguided focus. The last year has changed that, though. They absolutely seem to be on the right track. Very excited to see their progress over the next years.
    - nradov 7y ago
      Not to worry. No one is anywhere close to achieving true AGI so any safety concerns are a moot issue. It's akin to worrying about an alien invasion.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        > No one is anywhere close to achieving true AGI No one knows how far off true AGI is, just like no one in 1940 (or 1910) knew how far off fission weapons were. EDIT: I quite liked this article from a few years back [0], and the fission weapon prediction example is stolen from there. 0: https://intelligence.org/2017/10/13/fire-alarm/ https://intelligence.org/2017/10/13/fire-alarm/
        marvin 7y ago
        The Manhattan Project is a very apt analogy. Even if you believe that AGI is impossible, it should be possible to appreciate that many billions would quickly be invested in its development if somehow a viable pathway to it became clear. Even if just to a few well-connected experts. This is what happened when it became known nuclear weapons were a viable concept. The technology shifted power to such an extreme degree that it was impossible not to invest in it, and the delay from «likely impossible» to «done» happened too fast for most observers to notice.
- partisan 7y ago
  > We'll still release quite a lot, and those releases won't look any different from the past. I don’t mean to parse your words, but will you continue to publish using the same exact criteria as before or will there be a new editorial filter?

gdb 7y ago

We'll still release quite a lot, and those releases won't look any different from the past. > I understand that keeping some innovations private may help commercialization, which may help raise more funds for OpenAI, getting us to AGI faster, so my opinion is that could plausibly make sense. That's exactly how we think about it. We're interested in licensing some technologies in order to fund our AGI efforts. But even if we keep technology private for this reason, we still might be able to eventually publish it.

DSingularity 7y ago
Eventually open ai?
- oaeide 7y ago
  Maybe eventually openAI
  - apetrov 7y ago
    maybe eventually open maybe ai
- jjeaff 7y ago
  "maybe" eventually openAI
- ru999gol 7y ago
  does anyone serious (non-encumbered) actually believe that?
- marvin 7y ago
  I thought from day one that the name «OpenAI» would at best be a slight misnomer, and at worst indicative of a misguided approach. If AGI is close to being achieved, sharing key details of the approach to any actors at all could trigger a Manhattan Project-type global arms race where safety was compromised and the whole thing became insanely risky for the future of humanity. Glad to see that the team is taking a pragmatic safety-first approach here, as well as towards the near-term economical realities of funding a very expensive project to ensure the fastest possible progress. In the early days of OpenAI, my thoughts were that the project had good intentions, but a misguided focus. The last year has changed that, though. They absolutely seem to be on the right track. Very excited to see their progress over the next years.
  - nradov 7y ago
    Not to worry. No one is anywhere close to achieving true AGI so any safety concerns are a moot issue. It's akin to worrying about an alien invasion.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      > No one is anywhere close to achieving true AGI No one knows how far off true AGI is, just like no one in 1940 (or 1910) knew how far off fission weapons were. EDIT: I quite liked this article from a few years back [0], and the fission weapon prediction example is stolen from there. 0: https://intelligence.org/2017/10/13/fire-alarm/ https://intelligence.org/2017/10/13/fire-alarm/
      - marvin 7y ago
        The Manhattan Project is a very apt analogy. Even if you believe that AGI is impossible, it should be possible to appreciate that many billions would quickly be invested in its development if somehow a viable pathway to it became clear. Even if just to a few well-connected experts. This is what happened when it became known nuclear weapons were a viable concept. The technology shifted power to such an extreme degree that it was impossible not to invest in it, and the delay from «likely impossible» to «done» happened too fast for most observers to notice.
partisan 7y ago
> We'll still release quite a lot, and those releases won't look any different from the past. I don’t mean to parse your words, but will you continue to publish using the same exact criteria as before or will there be a new editorial filter?