5 ms·

So much for "Open" AI. Open-source algorithm? No. Open access for free, or reasonable prices? No. Open emails and conversations of directors (accountability)

So much for "Open" AI. Open-source algorithm? No. Open access for free, or reasonable prices? No. Open emails and conversations of directors (accountability)? No. Open conversations of issues and ethics? No.

rnd0 4y ago
Thank fuck they weren't called "HomelandAI" or "LibertyAI" or somesuch!
- all2 4y ago
  I smell a business opportunity. "HomelandAI" sounds rather nationalist.
- adishy 4y ago
  I see your subliminal "The Boys" reference :)
honkler 4y ago
well atleast now they are Open about their intentions :)
HDThoreaun 4y ago
Open access for a fee? Yes. The original point of openAI was to make sure google and facebook don't completely dominate AI and keep their work hidden due to the innovator's dilemma they face. Seems like they've absolutely accomplished that. Yes, they've stretched the meaning of "open" but I don't think they've ever tried to claim they had some sort of open source aspirations.
- meghan_rain 4y ago
  OpenAI = Microsoft, which you have conveniently left out in your FAANG enumeration
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Because Microsoft was in no way a leader in AI research when openAI was founded. But the important part here isn't keeping AI work from being dominated by big tech. It's to keep it from being hidden from the public by big tech.
    - meghan_rain 4y ago
      Can you elaborate on the last sentence?
      - HDThoreaun 4y ago
        Google and Facebook have long had language models that have been reported to be vastly superior to what was publicly available. The one that a Google engineer claimed was sentient was the most well known example. OpenAI was founded in reaction to these models being hidden away.
        adt2bt 4y ago
        OpenAI was founded in 2015, well before those models were created.
  - saurik 4y ago
    Which letter is Microsoft again? (I always forget.)
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  They claimed a lot of things. Open source, non-profit. Then they changed their minds on all of them. As for open access, that's usually defined as free of charge. E.g open access journals.
  - rchaud 4y ago
    It's sort of like how Uber dropped the pseudo-green 'ride-sharing' language from its marketing as soon as they had enough investor $ and brand recognition to cut out taxis with predatory pricing.
moffkalast 4y ago
Open your wallet? Yes.
code_runner 4y ago
Perhaps they mean that they operate in the open? They publish research, do open unrestricted beta tests etc. I'm not sure they will necessarily live up to every definition of open you'll ever come up with, but its hardly the worst name in the tech space. I'm still waiting for apple to deliver that tree to me. Facebook isn't a book AND the faces are almost always the smallest piece of content on a post (and some people's avatar isn't even their face!). Can't wait for my trip to the Amazon w/ Mr Bezos!
sebzim4500 4y ago
It's supposed to be 'Open' in comparison to Deepmind/Google Brain, not open in comparison to e.g. Linux.
nl 4y ago
> Open-source algorithm? No. The publish their algorithms just fine and no one has had issues replicating their work.
- maleldil 4y ago
  Where's the ChatGPT paper?
  - nl 4y ago
    From the ChatGTP announcement: "ChatGTP is a sibling model to Instruct GPT" The paper for that is linked from https://openai.com/research/instruction-following https://openai.com/research/instruction-following
    - maleldil 4y ago
      The InstructGPT paper only explains the RLHF part of how ChatGPT works. There's reason to believe that isn't enough to achieve ChatGPT's performance and behaviour (e.g. [1]). There are other components that make ChatGPT more powerful, and OpenAPI is not being open about them. [1] https://yaofu.notion.site/How-does-GPT-Obtain-its-Ability-Tracing-Emergent-Abilities-of-Language-Models-to-their-Sources-b9a57ac0fcf74f30a1ab9e3e36fa1dc1#3e764cf66cd84fd481fb166ec43188ca https://yaofu.notion.site/How-does-GPT-Obtain-its-Ability-Tr...
      - nl 4y ago
        I don't think that conclusion is clear at all. Indeed your own link has things they thought were unclear struck and and parts of the InstructGPT paper that explains them inserted. They do have newer models that aren't generally available that are different though.

rnd0 4y ago

Thank fuck they weren't called "HomelandAI" or "LibertyAI" or somesuch!

all2 4y ago
I smell a business opportunity. "HomelandAI" sounds rather nationalist.
adishy 4y ago
I see your subliminal "The Boys" reference :)

honkler 4y ago

well atleast now they are Open about their intentions :)

HDThoreaun 4y ago

Open access for a fee? Yes. The original point of openAI was to make sure google and facebook don't completely dominate AI and keep their work hidden due to the innovator's dilemma they face. Seems like they've absolutely accomplished that. Yes, they've stretched the meaning of "open" but I don't think they've ever tried to claim they had some sort of open source aspirations.

meghan_rain 4y ago
OpenAI = Microsoft, which you have conveniently left out in your FAANG enumeration
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Because Microsoft was in no way a leader in AI research when openAI was founded. But the important part here isn't keeping AI work from being dominated by big tech. It's to keep it from being hidden from the public by big tech.
  - meghan_rain 4y ago
    Can you elaborate on the last sentence?
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago
      Google and Facebook have long had language models that have been reported to be vastly superior to what was publicly available. The one that a Google engineer claimed was sentient was the most well known example. OpenAI was founded in reaction to these models being hidden away.
      - adt2bt 4y ago
        OpenAI was founded in 2015, well before those models were created.
- saurik 4y ago
  Which letter is Microsoft again? (I always forget.)
mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
They claimed a lot of things. Open source, non-profit. Then they changed their minds on all of them. As for open access, that's usually defined as free of charge. E.g open access journals.
- rchaud 4y ago
  It's sort of like how Uber dropped the pseudo-green 'ride-sharing' language from its marketing as soon as they had enough investor $ and brand recognition to cut out taxis with predatory pricing.

moffkalast 4y ago

Open your wallet? Yes.

code_runner 4y ago

Perhaps they mean that they operate in the open? They publish research, do open unrestricted beta tests etc. I'm not sure they will necessarily live up to every definition of open you'll ever come up with, but its hardly the worst name in the tech space. I'm still waiting for apple to deliver that tree to me. Facebook isn't a book AND the faces are almost always the smallest piece of content on a post (and some people's avatar isn't even their face!). Can't wait for my trip to the Amazon w/ Mr Bezos!

sebzim4500 4y ago

It's supposed to be 'Open' in comparison to Deepmind/Google Brain, not open in comparison to e.g. Linux.

nl 4y ago

> Open-source algorithm? No. The publish their algorithms just fine and no one has had issues replicating their work.

maleldil 4y ago
Where's the ChatGPT paper?
- nl 4y ago
  From the ChatGTP announcement: "ChatGTP is a sibling model to Instruct GPT" The paper for that is linked from https://openai.com/research/instruction-following https://openai.com/research/instruction-following
  - maleldil 4y ago
    The InstructGPT paper only explains the RLHF part of how ChatGPT works. There's reason to believe that isn't enough to achieve ChatGPT's performance and behaviour (e.g. [1]). There are other components that make ChatGPT more powerful, and OpenAPI is not being open about them. [1] https://yaofu.notion.site/How-does-GPT-Obtain-its-Ability-Tracing-Emergent-Abilities-of-Language-Models-to-their-Sources-b9a57ac0fcf74f30a1ab9e3e36fa1dc1#3e764cf66cd84fd481fb166ec43188ca https://yaofu.notion.site/How-does-GPT-Obtain-its-Ability-Tr...
    - nl 4y ago
      I don't think that conclusion is clear at all. Indeed your own link has things they thought were unclear struck and and parts of the InstructGPT paper that explains them inserted. They do have newer models that aren't generally available that are different though.