5 ms·

Sam Altman addresses that when he was asked that question in 'How I Built This' Podcast. Essentially: OpenAI did not realize the massive scale they needed for t

by achow 4y ago

Sam Altman addresses that when he was asked that question in 'How I Built This' Podcast. Essentially: OpenAI did not realize the massive scale they needed for them to be successful. When they realized this, they could not raise any funding as 'non-profit'. They asked govt, who did not want to fund it, and other sources, at the end they did not have any other recourse. Sam Altaman says: 90% of funding was needed for compute power, but also was needed for things like buying dataset and then to pay employee so that they can compete with likes of Google to retain them. If they would not have done this, then very soon they would have become irreverent. So to retain the earlier intent (for greater good) they put in bunch of 'safety features' around funding - Ex. 'Profit Cap' - after 100X the profit would be distributed to the world (in some way). Similarly, there were few others he talked about. The relevant portion starts at 32:39 mark in the following podcast: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3oOX1QHLPw9uvLL5LmBk28?si=s https://open.spotify.com/episode/3oOX1QHLPw9uvLL5LmBk28?si=s...

OnlineGladiator 4y ago
It sounds like you agree with me that OpenAI is poorly named. "We wanted to be open, but we couldn't - we kept the name anyway."
- meowkit 4y ago
  The argument then becomes how to interpret "Open", not that you both agree. If they keep publishing their research, then OpenAI seems like a fine name to me.
  - OnlineGladiator 4y ago
    And Russia never invaded Ukraine. You can stretch the meaning of a word all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the people misrepresenting the word are acting in bad faith.
    - throwaway29812 4y ago
      What?
      - OnlineGladiator 4y ago
        According to Russia, they never invaded Ukraine. Russia is acting in bad faith. The point is you can misconstrue a word all you want, but you're only damaging your own credibility. OpenAI is likewise acting in bad faith. It's the same story with Google, and Facebook, and Tesla, and on and on and on. When the leaders are unethical you shouldn't expect anything else.
  - cardine 4y ago
    They've largely stopped publishing.
    - thesunkid 4y ago
      To be fair, they still published papers casually and published a ton of useful OOS recently. Whisper, Tiktoken, Point-E, you named it.
      - bayindirh 4y ago
        Are these papers reproducible, or do they have source attached to them, if applicable?
        teruakohatu 4y ago
        Very few DL papers are 100% fully reproducible, in that you can get identical results and generate identical checkpoints, even when source is attached and benchmark datasets are used. I would say the vast majority published are not even close to be able to be reproduced. Full size LLMs are not able to be reproduced because the datasets are copyright and not distributable and you need millions of dollars worth of compute to fully train them. If a company is publishing enough detail about SoTA architectures for researchers to ballpark reproduce, that is a win in my book.
        bayindirh 4y ago
        I'm not actually expecting them to be 100% reproducible. I'm more than familiar with the work required to do that. What I'm expecting is not holding back the secret sauce, as seen in some (or many) publications. My gripe is not limited to DL/ML/AI scope either. When I try to compare my results with the papers I cite, I generally can't find the formulae or the detailed method to reproduce the numerical method the paper claims, and this leaves us at the dark. All I can do is saying "Paper23 cites these results, and we surpass them at this, we are even at that, and they are better at the other thing", which I'm not comfortable doing. Not because they are not telling the truth, but I want to test my method against other methods on an even ground.
  - DrBenCarson 4y ago
    It’s not even open source lol I get the need to make money but at least contribute OSS to the community they’re building a product on….
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    Semantic debates are largely irrelevant. It is what it is.
- mcbuilder 4y ago
  It works, I was watching some "normie" youtube creator using Chat-GPT in a face-off with him over some domain specific question and answers. He was new to the LLM thing you could tell, but said how it was an open source right in the intro. Probably a common mistake for a company with "Open" in the name
- make3 4y ago
  as much shit as we can give them for something as trivial as their name, their contributions to AI with GPT-1 (which beat all benchmarks & which led to BERT & was basically the "real" BERT itself), GPT-2, which was really impressive back then, GPT-3 which was an incredibly improvement that people had not see coming, PPO in reinforcement learning, reinforcement learning from human feedback in NLP, Instruct GPT (the real ChatGPT before ChatGPT), and now chatGPT
ShamelessC 4y ago
Next level gaslighting.
mcorcuera 4y ago
I created a snip with the relevant portion of the conversation: https://share.snipd.com/post/0bb82eea-e7a0-4d4e-b234-8471dc57f831 https://share.snipd.com/post/0bb82eea-e7a0-4d4e-b234-8471dc5...

by achow 4y ago

OnlineGladiator 4y ago

It sounds like you agree with me that OpenAI is poorly named. "We wanted to be open, but we couldn't - we kept the name anyway."

meowkit 4y ago
The argument then becomes how to interpret "Open", not that you both agree. If they keep publishing their research, then OpenAI seems like a fine name to me.
- OnlineGladiator 4y ago
  And Russia never invaded Ukraine. You can stretch the meaning of a word all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the people misrepresenting the word are acting in bad faith.
  - throwaway29812 4y ago
    What?
    - OnlineGladiator 4y ago
      According to Russia, they never invaded Ukraine. Russia is acting in bad faith. The point is you can misconstrue a word all you want, but you're only damaging your own credibility. OpenAI is likewise acting in bad faith. It's the same story with Google, and Facebook, and Tesla, and on and on and on. When the leaders are unethical you shouldn't expect anything else.
- cardine 4y ago
  They've largely stopped publishing.
  - thesunkid 4y ago
    To be fair, they still published papers casually and published a ton of useful OOS recently. Whisper, Tiktoken, Point-E, you named it.
    - bayindirh 4y ago
      Are these papers reproducible, or do they have source attached to them, if applicable?
      - teruakohatu 4y ago
        Very few DL papers are 100% fully reproducible, in that you can get identical results and generate identical checkpoints, even when source is attached and benchmark datasets are used. I would say the vast majority published are not even close to be able to be reproduced. Full size LLMs are not able to be reproduced because the datasets are copyright and not distributable and you need millions of dollars worth of compute to fully train them. If a company is publishing enough detail about SoTA architectures for researchers to ballpark reproduce, that is a win in my book.
        bayindirh 4y ago
        I'm not actually expecting them to be 100% reproducible. I'm more than familiar with the work required to do that. What I'm expecting is not holding back the secret sauce, as seen in some (or many) publications. My gripe is not limited to DL/ML/AI scope either. When I try to compare my results with the papers I cite, I generally can't find the formulae or the detailed method to reproduce the numerical method the paper claims, and this leaves us at the dark. All I can do is saying "Paper23 cites these results, and we surpass them at this, we are even at that, and they are better at the other thing", which I'm not comfortable doing. Not because they are not telling the truth, but I want to test my method against other methods on an even ground.
- DrBenCarson 4y ago
  It’s not even open source lol I get the need to make money but at least contribute OSS to the community they’re building a product on….
- koheripbal 4y ago
  Semantic debates are largely irrelevant. It is what it is.
mcbuilder 4y ago
It works, I was watching some "normie" youtube creator using Chat-GPT in a face-off with him over some domain specific question and answers. He was new to the LLM thing you could tell, but said how it was an open source right in the intro. Probably a common mistake for a company with "Open" in the name
make3 4y ago
as much shit as we can give them for something as trivial as their name, their contributions to AI with GPT-1 (which beat all benchmarks & which led to BERT & was basically the "real" BERT itself), GPT-2, which was really impressive back then, GPT-3 which was an incredibly improvement that people had not see coming, PPO in reinforcement learning, reinforcement learning from human feedback in NLP, Instruct GPT (the real ChatGPT before ChatGPT), and now chatGPT

ShamelessC 4y ago

Next level gaslighting.

mcorcuera 4y ago

I created a snip with the relevant portion of the conversation: https://share.snipd.com/post/0bb82eea-e7a0-4d4e-b234-8471dc57f831 https://share.snipd.com/post/0bb82eea-e7a0-4d4e-b234-8471dc5...