6 ms·

I think the folks working at OpenAI are really good at what they do and I respect them immensely, but as an outsider, OpenAI-the-company as originally imagined

I think the folks working at OpenAI are really good at what they do and I respect them immensely, but as an outsider, OpenAI-the-company as originally imagined has been completely transformed. The frog has been boiled, so to speak: [2015] Founded as a non-profit, designed to democratize and share research benefiting humanity [2018] Releases GPT, open sourcing code and paper [2019] Shares info on GPT-2, doesn't release out of concerns about "malicious applications" [2019] Changes structure to a for-profit* company [2020] Shares info on GPT-3, commercializes model via closed API [2020] Exclusively licenses their GPT-3 model to Microsoft I'd like to believe that there's a non-cynical take here, and I'm curious if folks working there are still fully bought into the mission with all the changes. * Profit capped at 100x is entirely for-profit in practice, especially since there's nothing stopping them from raising the cap.

staticassertion 6y ago
I don't think we can try to tell companies like Facebook that they're being irresponsible and unethical and then ask that every tech company releases tech that they don't understand yet into the world without fear of consequences. These are dangerous capabilities and it is reasonable to open them up to the world slowly.
- nharada 6y ago
  I actually agree with this, and I thought that OpenAI's decision to not open source GPT-2 was smart and measured at the time. I didn't fully believe the commentary that it was profit motivated. But I believe that single actions should be viewed in the context of patterns of behavior. Truthfully, deciding not to open source GPT-2 can be both profit motivated and safety oriented. I had thought it was mostly the latter, but in the context of the company's choices it looks like more the former than I thought.
  - phkahler 6y ago
    Yep. If AI is a threat to anyone it's the size and reach of those who control it that makes it potentially dangerous. If that's a concern you don't do this. It's all about the Benjamins.
    - slg 6y ago
      >If AI is a threat to anyone it's the size and reach of those who control it that makes it potentially dangerous. The important part is not the size and reach of the controlling entity. It is the motives of that entity. Microsoft is motivated by profit, but they are also motivated to continue to legally operate in almost every country in the world. They aren't going to use this technology in blatantly illegal ways and probably won't use it in actively harmful ways. Open sourcing this tech would allow it to fall into much more nefarious hands.
pkaye 6y ago
Seems like they should change the company name to ClosedAI.
- terrycody 6y ago
  Sorry please correct me or what, so OpenAI will not open its commercial use of GPT3-API? Or this news is nothing related with its commercial use, just co-work with Mircosoft,inc, non of our businesses.
  - mcpherrinm 6y ago
    From the article: Microsoft says that OpenAI will continue to offer GPT-3 and other models via its Azure-hosted API, launched in June. So it sounds like the only way to access gpt-3 will be via Azure.
    - darepublic 6y ago
      Do you know how I can access it via Azure?
      - terrycody 6y ago
        You don't need to worry about that, just buy the API from official site of GPT3, and it means the API is powered by Azure cloud infrastructure, its non of our businesses, no need care about that.
rizpanjwani 6y ago
how is it legally possible to go from non-profit to profit? People who donated time/resources originally, if not happy about it, can't sue for misleading them?
- PeterisP 6y ago
  The organization is not required to exist forever. The nonprofit has restrictions to spend the donated resources appropriately to the goals, but once they're spent properly, that's it, there's no ongoing obligation. If a company was funded by some large pile of cash, spent half of it, and wanted to divert the other half to something else, then your argument would be valid. But if they get a stream of donations every month, spend all of it every month, and now some donors want to stop funding the old legal entity and start funding a different one, there's nothing preventing the donors from doing so. One way to do that is to establish a new organization, transfer any deals from any partners who want to cooperate to the new organization (no obstacle since all three parties - oldcorp, newcorp and partner - agree). Buy any relevant assets including branding and such from the old one (this would need to be at a fair market value, but you likely don't need many of them), spend all the money at the old company (most likely on salaries for the employees doing whatever the goals were), liquidate the old entity and move on.
  - chii 6y ago
    But the intellectual assets created with the donated funding didn't cease to exist. It seems the donors don't have a say in who gets to own the intellectual asset in a new entity. Sounds like bait and switch to me.
    - SergeAx 6y ago
      Donors are not shareholders, they are not eligible to any outcomes of company's activity. That's an unobvious quirk, but it's there.
    - jlokier 6y ago
      If the non-profit's constitution said it could not sell the intellectual assets created from its activity, that might prevent a new for-profit from acquiring them (even a subsidiary of the non-profit), except on licensed terms. I don't know of any non-profit which has a condition like that in their constitution. However, they do often have an "asset lock", which would require assets are sold at fair market value, not given away, profits are not distributed etc. Seems to me, an "intellectual property asset lock" could be constructed along similar lines, if people really wanted to. It might be a bad idea, though, if the non-profit folds, or would benefit from being restructured. Something allowing contribution to Open Invention Network or similar might be better for the long term.
TrainedMonkey 6y ago
Elon exited open AI around 2019: https://www.ccn.com/elon-musk-confirms-exit-from-openai-over-disagreements-to-focus-on-tesla-spacex/ https://www.ccn.com/elon-musk-confirms-exit-from-openai-over...
- FartyMcFarter 6y ago
  Given how out of control Elon was around that time, I suspect OpenAI leadership was relieved.
  - ericb 6y ago
    OpenAI is even more out of control than Elon! Elon was accidentally working against his stated goals. OpenAI is deliberately working against its own stated goals.
anaganisk 6y ago
Now I wonder what will happen to all those startups, that launched their platform based on the API upon just recieving beta api keys. I was sure waiting for this fire.
- pas 6y ago
  It seems the API will be available as an Azure thing.
consumer451 6y ago
I am sorry to say that the OpenAI storyline has made me lose a ton of respect for the folks involved. I would love for someone to talk me down from that, but the results speak for themselves so far. Was I naive to believe that people whose primary role is extracting returns could be capable of anything truly altruistic? I mean the wolf is generally going to eat the lamb, correct? I have spent hours thinking about this drama. It actually led to some interesting changes which I plan on implementing in my life and work. So there is one positive from this story.
- Decker87 6y ago
  It may or may not make you feel better, but it was never really a viable business model as a nonprofit. They have to compete against Google, Amazon, etc. and people have bills to pay. It's not that they became villains, it's just that they aimed to be altruistic heroes and ended up normal people.
  - elkos 6y ago
    But they do still call themselves OpenAI while they choose to go proprietary? Isn't that a misappropriation of the term?

staticassertion 6y ago

I don't think we can try to tell companies like Facebook that they're being irresponsible and unethical and then ask that every tech company releases tech that they don't understand yet into the world without fear of consequences. These are dangerous capabilities and it is reasonable to open them up to the world slowly.

nharada 6y ago
I actually agree with this, and I thought that OpenAI's decision to not open source GPT-2 was smart and measured at the time. I didn't fully believe the commentary that it was profit motivated. But I believe that single actions should be viewed in the context of patterns of behavior. Truthfully, deciding not to open source GPT-2 can be both profit motivated and safety oriented. I had thought it was mostly the latter, but in the context of the company's choices it looks like more the former than I thought.
- phkahler 6y ago
  Yep. If AI is a threat to anyone it's the size and reach of those who control it that makes it potentially dangerous. If that's a concern you don't do this. It's all about the Benjamins.
  - slg 6y ago
    >If AI is a threat to anyone it's the size and reach of those who control it that makes it potentially dangerous. The important part is not the size and reach of the controlling entity. It is the motives of that entity. Microsoft is motivated by profit, but they are also motivated to continue to legally operate in almost every country in the world. They aren't going to use this technology in blatantly illegal ways and probably won't use it in actively harmful ways. Open sourcing this tech would allow it to fall into much more nefarious hands.

pkaye 6y ago

Seems like they should change the company name to ClosedAI.

terrycody 6y ago
Sorry please correct me or what, so OpenAI will not open its commercial use of GPT3-API? Or this news is nothing related with its commercial use, just co-work with Mircosoft,inc, non of our businesses.
- mcpherrinm 6y ago
  From the article: Microsoft says that OpenAI will continue to offer GPT-3 and other models via its Azure-hosted API, launched in June. So it sounds like the only way to access gpt-3 will be via Azure.
  - darepublic 6y ago
    Do you know how I can access it via Azure?
    - terrycody 6y ago
      You don't need to worry about that, just buy the API from official site of GPT3, and it means the API is powered by Azure cloud infrastructure, its non of our businesses, no need care about that.

rizpanjwani 6y ago

how is it legally possible to go from non-profit to profit? People who donated time/resources originally, if not happy about it, can't sue for misleading them?

PeterisP 6y ago
The organization is not required to exist forever. The nonprofit has restrictions to spend the donated resources appropriately to the goals, but once they're spent properly, that's it, there's no ongoing obligation. If a company was funded by some large pile of cash, spent half of it, and wanted to divert the other half to something else, then your argument would be valid. But if they get a stream of donations every month, spend all of it every month, and now some donors want to stop funding the old legal entity and start funding a different one, there's nothing preventing the donors from doing so. One way to do that is to establish a new organization, transfer any deals from any partners who want to cooperate to the new organization (no obstacle since all three parties - oldcorp, newcorp and partner - agree). Buy any relevant assets including branding and such from the old one (this would need to be at a fair market value, but you likely don't need many of them), spend all the money at the old company (most likely on salaries for the employees doing whatever the goals were), liquidate the old entity and move on.
- chii 6y ago
  But the intellectual assets created with the donated funding didn't cease to exist. It seems the donors don't have a say in who gets to own the intellectual asset in a new entity. Sounds like bait and switch to me.
  - SergeAx 6y ago
    Donors are not shareholders, they are not eligible to any outcomes of company's activity. That's an unobvious quirk, but it's there.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    If the non-profit's constitution said it could not sell the intellectual assets created from its activity, that might prevent a new for-profit from acquiring them (even a subsidiary of the non-profit), except on licensed terms. I don't know of any non-profit which has a condition like that in their constitution. However, they do often have an "asset lock", which would require assets are sold at fair market value, not given away, profits are not distributed etc. Seems to me, an "intellectual property asset lock" could be constructed along similar lines, if people really wanted to. It might be a bad idea, though, if the non-profit folds, or would benefit from being restructured. Something allowing contribution to Open Invention Network or similar might be better for the long term.

TrainedMonkey 6y ago

Elon exited open AI around 2019: https://www.ccn.com/elon-musk-confirms-exit-from-openai-over-disagreements-to-focus-on-tesla-spacex/ https://www.ccn.com/elon-musk-confirms-exit-from-openai-over...

FartyMcFarter 6y ago
Given how out of control Elon was around that time, I suspect OpenAI leadership was relieved.
- ericb 6y ago
  OpenAI is even more out of control than Elon! Elon was accidentally working against his stated goals. OpenAI is deliberately working against its own stated goals.

anaganisk 6y ago

Now I wonder what will happen to all those startups, that launched their platform based on the API upon just recieving beta api keys. I was sure waiting for this fire.

pas 6y ago
It seems the API will be available as an Azure thing.

consumer451 6y ago

I am sorry to say that the OpenAI storyline has made me lose a ton of respect for the folks involved. I would love for someone to talk me down from that, but the results speak for themselves so far. Was I naive to believe that people whose primary role is extracting returns could be capable of anything truly altruistic? I mean the wolf is generally going to eat the lamb, correct? I have spent hours thinking about this drama. It actually led to some interesting changes which I plan on implementing in my life and work. So there is one positive from this story.

Decker87 6y ago
It may or may not make you feel better, but it was never really a viable business model as a nonprofit. They have to compete against Google, Amazon, etc. and people have bills to pay. It's not that they became villains, it's just that they aimed to be altruistic heroes and ended up normal people.
- elkos 6y ago
  But they do still call themselves OpenAI while they choose to go proprietary? Isn't that a misappropriation of the term?