7 ms·

How 'Open' Is OpenAI, Really?

87 points by prhrb 4y ago

greatpostman 4y ago
Does it matter? Openai finally built something resembling ai. Big tech wasn’t innovating, I personally don’t care if employees at openai capture a ton of the upside
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  > Does it matter? Yes. > Openai finally built something resembling ai. Big tech wasn’t innovating, I personally don’t care if employees at openai capture a ton of the upside And if they called themselves ClosedAI I don't think people would mind so much; it's the dishonesty that's grating.
  - kergonath 4y ago
    > And if they called themselves ClosedAI I don't think people would mind so much; it's the dishonesty that's grating. Isn’t this part for the course for an Elon project? Jokes aside (in this case I actually agree with him that openness is critical if the society starts really relying on AI), there would still be a need for a free model. There is too much at stake to rely on a single black box in that area.
  - thatsadude 4y ago
    At least they publish their papers!
- kergonath 4y ago
  > Does it matter? It does. Very much. We do not want to have to rely on government intervention and unforced errors to avoid an AI wasteland like we used to have with operating systems and web browsers. Particularly as these things are trained using our collective “wisdom” (well, production anyway) only to be sold back to us.
fenomas 4y ago
Question for someone who follows this space: are there any significant models/tech/etc that OpenAI has made open? Either before or after they changed business models. What they've kept private is well-known, but are there any checkboxes in the other column?
- kragen 4y ago
  whisper
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  Off the top of my head, CLIP the vision-language model, and Whisper, the audio to text model, have their trained weights and the architectures open. They did not open source the training dataset, although I fear it may be too much of an ask given all the possible legal issues.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- scottydog51834 4y ago
  GPT-2 Here is one cool (and recent) research project using GPT-2 model weights. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cgqh99SHsCv3jJYDS/we-found-an-neuron-in-gpt-2 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cgqh99SHsCv3jJYDS/we-found-a...
  - fenomas 4y ago
    TFA claims GPT-2 isn't open. Is it that the trained weights are open but the project that did the training isn't?
    - alwayslikethis 4y ago
      Realistically the most difficult part of training a LLM is curating a good data set. OpenAI never published their training data.
- retrac 4y ago
bingu 4y ago
I thought it was so cool how a non-profit made one of the most game changing tech products in years. Then I was incredibly bummed when I realized they weren't a non profit anymore.
- casebash 4y ago
  They are still dedicated towards trying to advance humanity and I think that's more important than non-profit status. (For the record, I'm uncertain whether they are net positive or not given that I am skeptical of their approach to safety).
  - mach1ne 4y ago
    Im skeptical of their dedication towards trying to advance humanity versus more mundane objectives. It's a tale as old as time that noble initial goals are corrupted by power and greed when opportunity presents itself.
isoprophlex 4y ago
When I was a teenager, there was a local chain of record stores over here named "free record store" But guess what, you couldn't just walk in, grab some CDs and walk out without paying.
- canadiantim 4y ago
  I was walking around downtown Toronto and saw some shop with large lettings on the outside saying "Pop Up Shop" advertising wild sales, etc. Turns out, the company is actually called Pop Up Shop. Very clever
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  It's a bad name there, too, but physical products are expected to have a cost; software frequently is FOSS and gratis, so there's more room for a reasonable person to think that maybe they actually are what they claim to be.
samspenc 4y ago
I think the article does a good job capturing the history of what happened. OpenAI started out with the intention of being a non-profit, but realized over time that it made it difficult to compete in terms of salary and hardware, so pivoted to a 'capped' for-profit. As for Microsoft, my guess is their investment was just another investment in a hot AI 'startup'. It was sheer luck, and being in the right place at the right time, that they hit a gold mine with that investment as ChatGPT took off, but otherwise this would have been just one of their many investments that disappeared into the ether. The most surprising thing to me is how hard and fast Microsoft pivoted once they realized they had a golden goose on their hands, with the Bing / Edge and other integrations they are doing. Never though I would see them move that fast, kudos.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- fnbr 4y ago
  It was very impressive for an org the size of Microsoft to pivot as quickly as they did.
- paxys 4y ago
  One reason why Microsoft was able to execute so fast was that they had nothing to lose in doing so. The entirety of the Bing product and brand is mostly immaterial to the company's bottom line. What better way to try and revitalize it than by taking a huge leap with some hot new tech that is capturing the public imagination? If that leap is successful, you get to open up a huge new line of business and challenge Google. If not, well it just...goes back to being Bing. For Google – whose entire business is tied up in that one search box – it is a very different equation. Any reduction of consumer confidence in their search engine is an existential threat to the company. Changes have to be rolled out slowly and with an immense amount of deliberation and testing. Microsoft would be stuck in the same dilemma if, say, someone came up up with a futuristic-looking disruption in the spreadsheet space and Google Sheets was quick to adapt to it.
  - textninja 4y ago
notaigenerated 4y ago
Openai changed it course. Time for rebranding! ClosedAI? MicrosoftAI? What do you think it should be?
- AlexDragusin 4y ago
  command.com
- trog 4y ago
  They should go old school and call it Clippy. That would be amazing.
  - ChatGTP 4y ago
    I already know many people who are calling it "Clippy", seems to be the unofficial name for it within circles I frequent ha
- arcanemachiner 4y ago
  Microsoft Subsystem for AI.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Microsoft Subsystem for Automatic Interpolation.
- casebash 4y ago
  I actually think that open source AI will be a terrible idea for sufficiently advance AI for the same reasons that open source nukes or bioweapons would be a mistake. So I'd be very happy to see them change their name to ClosedAI.
  - arlcode 4y ago
    That may well be but a single for profit company like Microsoft will be a terrible guardian of that. Future OpenAI usage limitations: - anything illegal in the US and your country - anything MS deems immoral and ethically problematic - and anything that competes with Microsoft.
blackoil 4y ago
It may not be 'Open' in sense of open-source or free, but it is open that I can access it and use it in my projects. Before this companies like Google/Facebook had such models but closed in sense that we can get some papers and blog posts but can't rely on them to build our startup. Because of financial and people resources required, availability of data etc. rest always stayed. Now I can use ChatGPT, Gpt-3/4, Whisper etc. at a reasonable cost and it is forcing rest of the industry to also "Open" up.
- otabdeveloper4 4y ago
  That, like, an incredibly low bar as to what's considered "open". (For all we know ChatGPT might be just an outsourced Indian call center under the hood. We don't actually know how it works.)
  - ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
    OpenishAI The Indian was too expensive, it is a Kenyan [1]. [1] "OpenAI Used Kenyan Workers on Less Than $2 Per Hour to Make ChatGPT Less Toxic" https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers
fsckboy 4y ago
on the meaning of open, a tangential issue, let's have Sherman set the wayback machine to when the word "open" first started being used. "OK Mr Peabody" open has a number of meanings that are useful, but have been overwhelmed by the concept of open source. but open standards used to be the meaning. "ethernet is this, here's how you talk to it, but we're not going to write the code for you" (i'm not claiming that ethernet was originally an open standard, just using that as an example of what an open standard means) and hardware manufacturers used to include blueprints/schematics (for repair, or for interconnection, for example) and commercial software vendors would show you the source code, but at the same time, you weren't being given intellectual property rights or licenses to anything, it was just part of what was required to encourage customers to stick with the product by making it easier to fit in where it was going. And all of this was a really useful kind of openness. Just mentioning it because when people talk about how open OpenAI is, I'm never quite sure what they're expecting (I don't mind any expectation, not judging, I just don't know)
- kergonath 4y ago
  > open has a number of meanings that are useful, but have been overwhelmed by the concept of open source. How is Open Source not open? You have the source, and it is open (you can modify, hack, and distribute it). Hence, “Open Source”. What’s wrong with it? > but open standards used to be the meaning. "ethernet is this, here's how you talk to it, but we're not going to write the code for you" (i'm not claiming that ethernet was originally an open standard, just using that as an example of what an open standard means) Open standards are not better than Open Source, if you go that way. Most of them are not free, for a start. > and hardware manufacturers used to include blueprints/schematics (for repair, or for interconnection, for example) and commercial software vendors would show you the source code, snip That is a fantasised past. Some companies did; most companies did not. Just as nowadays.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    i didn't say open source is not open, i said that other things that are not open-source can also be called open. OpenAI is not called OpensourceAI because that's not the extent of what they meant. I didn't say open standards are better than open source, I said open standards are also open. don't have time to read the rest of your comment, chatgpt's waiting for me on hold and getting impatient.
recuter 4y ago
Now that it runs on our laptops a lot of the initial shock, mystique, and novelty has already worn off, just like with DALL-E before it. What the leaks show is that the community can run circles around OpenAI and the others when it comes to optimizing these things and taking them in interesting directions on a shoe string budget. For example of what one sesh of tinkering can produce: https://github.com/geohot/tinygrad/blob/master/examples/llama.py#L264-L347 https://github.com/geohot/tinygrad/blob/master/examples/llam... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nctqc8FBJ2U&t=4954s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nctqc8FBJ2U&t=4954s The cat is out of the bag, you don't need a beowulf cluster of A100's and unlimited Azure credits. You do need a budget to train that is out of reach for hobbyists but the moat is not insurmountable and I don't think VC's will be scared off anymore as a lot of startup ideas are viable and a lot of outsiders can demonstrably make a real go of it. Time for BasedAI. Game on.
- can_center_divs 4y ago
  Yeah, the community always seems to figure out how to do things more effective. My girlfriend asked me if I could transcribe some audio files for her with my "programming stuff". I immediately thought of Whisper from OpenAI. I first used the official CLI tool. With the largest model it took long 8 hours to transcribe a 30 min long file. I noticed it was running on the CPU - tried switching it to use the GPU instead with no luck. Running it on WSL was probably not helping. Then I found this gem: https://github.com/Const-me/Whisper https://github.com/Const-me/Whisper A C++ Windows implementation of Whisper. I opened the program, fed it with the largest model and the file. The transcript was done in 4 minutes, instead of 8 hours... Downside? The program has a GUI, lol. Of course, I could probably get the CLI tool to run on the GPU with some tinkering and installing some Nvidia packages for Whisper to use. But frankly, I have so little experience with that kind of stuff, that installing the Windows implementation was a much easier choice.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- FooBarWidget 4y ago
  ChatGPT can run on our laptops? How? The only thing I could find was that it can't because it requires 128 GB VRAM.
donpark 4y ago
Neither their name nor history matter to me so, as long as their services are useful and pricing is reasonable, I will continue using OpenAI services.
- arlcode 4y ago
  That's a reasonable position to take and probably makes a lot of business sense. Yet it's great to see that there are alternatives emerging as this forces OpenAI/Microsoft to innovate and hopefully limits their ability to hike up prices once they've captured the market in a year or two. We don't really need another quasi uncontested tech monopoly
deafpolygon 4y ago
AAAS (AI as a Service) You heard it here first.
yegle 4y ago
Perhaps worth noting that Anthropic was founded by former OpenAI employees after the funding from the Microsoft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic
jokoon 4y ago
I wish we could interview those scientists to hear what they think of this AGI goal. I'm not convinced this will work.
renewiltord 4y ago
OpenAI are legends. They gave us fire. Until then we only heard about this tech from inside Google. It was always like "AI ethicists think this is too dangerous" and so we couldn't have it. Each time, OpenAI made it happen. They were the driving force behind all of this stuff. Dall E changed the game entirely. ChatGPT changed the game again! Lots of credit to Stability.AI - absolutely grand work by then. But OpenAI took what was once the tool of wizards in secret towers and gave it to all of us. Then Stability and Meta gave us the means to build the tools. Who would have thought that Mark Zuckerberg would be crucial to the democratization of cutting edge tech. What a legend!
golol 4y ago
I think one should also acknowledge that OpenAI has been perhaps the leading provider of cutting edge AI to the public. They let the public play against Dota Five, they provide their GPT playground and API, and they were the first to give something to the public with Dalle2 too. From the perspective of a developer this os mot very open, but from the perspective of the public it is quite open. But more "open access" or "open visibility" instead of "open source". What they really don't want is that google or whatever develops an AGI secretly.
Exendroinients 4y ago
[flagged]

87 points by prhrb 4y ago

Does it matter? Openai finally built something resembling ai. Big tech wasn’t innovating, I personally don’t care if employees at openai capture a ton of the upside

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
> Does it matter? Yes. > Openai finally built something resembling ai. Big tech wasn’t innovating, I personally don’t care if employees at openai capture a ton of the upside And if they called themselves ClosedAI I don't think people would mind so much; it's the dishonesty that's grating.
- kergonath 4y ago
  > And if they called themselves ClosedAI I don't think people would mind so much; it's the dishonesty that's grating. Isn’t this part for the course for an Elon project? Jokes aside (in this case I actually agree with him that openness is critical if the society starts really relying on AI), there would still be a need for a free model. There is too much at stake to rely on a single black box in that area.
- thatsadude 4y ago
  At least they publish their papers!
kergonath 4y ago
> Does it matter? It does. Very much. We do not want to have to rely on government intervention and unforced errors to avoid an AI wasteland like we used to have with operating systems and web browsers. Particularly as these things are trained using our collective “wisdom” (well, production anyway) only to be sold back to us.

fenomas 4y ago

Question for someone who follows this space: are there any significant models/tech/etc that OpenAI has made open? Either before or after they changed business models. What they've kept private is well-known, but are there any checkboxes in the other column?

kragen 4y ago
whisper
polygamous_bat 4y ago
Off the top of my head, CLIP the vision-language model, and Whisper, the audio to text model, have their trained weights and the architectures open. They did not open source the training dataset, although I fear it may be too much of an ask given all the possible legal issues.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
scottydog51834 4y ago
GPT-2 Here is one cool (and recent) research project using GPT-2 model weights. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cgqh99SHsCv3jJYDS/we-found-an-neuron-in-gpt-2 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cgqh99SHsCv3jJYDS/we-found-a...
- fenomas 4y ago
  TFA claims GPT-2 isn't open. Is it that the trained weights are open but the project that did the training isn't?
  - alwayslikethis 4y ago
    Realistically the most difficult part of training a LLM is curating a good data set. OpenAI never published their training data.
retrac 4y ago

bingu 4y ago

I thought it was so cool how a non-profit made one of the most game changing tech products in years. Then I was incredibly bummed when I realized they weren't a non profit anymore.

casebash 4y ago
They are still dedicated towards trying to advance humanity and I think that's more important than non-profit status. (For the record, I'm uncertain whether they are net positive or not given that I am skeptical of their approach to safety).
- mach1ne 4y ago
  Im skeptical of their dedication towards trying to advance humanity versus more mundane objectives. It's a tale as old as time that noble initial goals are corrupted by power and greed when opportunity presents itself.

isoprophlex 4y ago

When I was a teenager, there was a local chain of record stores over here named "free record store" But guess what, you couldn't just walk in, grab some CDs and walk out without paying.

canadiantim 4y ago
I was walking around downtown Toronto and saw some shop with large lettings on the outside saying "Pop Up Shop" advertising wild sales, etc. Turns out, the company is actually called Pop Up Shop. Very clever
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
It's a bad name there, too, but physical products are expected to have a cost; software frequently is FOSS and gratis, so there's more room for a reasonable person to think that maybe they actually are what they claim to be.

samspenc 4y ago

I think the article does a good job capturing the history of what happened. OpenAI started out with the intention of being a non-profit, but realized over time that it made it difficult to compete in terms of salary and hardware, so pivoted to a 'capped' for-profit. As for Microsoft, my guess is their investment was just another investment in a hot AI 'startup'. It was sheer luck, and being in the right place at the right time, that they hit a gold mine with that investment as ChatGPT took off, but otherwise this would have been just one of their many investments that disappeared into the ether. The most surprising thing to me is how hard and fast Microsoft pivoted once they realized they had a golden goose on their hands, with the Bing / Edge and other integrations they are doing. Never though I would see them move that fast, kudos.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fnbr 4y ago
It was very impressive for an org the size of Microsoft to pivot as quickly as they did.
paxys 4y ago
One reason why Microsoft was able to execute so fast was that they had nothing to lose in doing so. The entirety of the Bing product and brand is mostly immaterial to the company's bottom line. What better way to try and revitalize it than by taking a huge leap with some hot new tech that is capturing the public imagination? If that leap is successful, you get to open up a huge new line of business and challenge Google. If not, well it just...goes back to being Bing. For Google – whose entire business is tied up in that one search box – it is a very different equation. Any reduction of consumer confidence in their search engine is an existential threat to the company. Changes have to be rolled out slowly and with an immense amount of deliberation and testing. Microsoft would be stuck in the same dilemma if, say, someone came up up with a futuristic-looking disruption in the spreadsheet space and Google Sheets was quick to adapt to it.
- textninja 4y ago

notaigenerated 4y ago

Openai changed it course. Time for rebranding! ClosedAI? MicrosoftAI? What do you think it should be?

AlexDragusin 4y ago
command.com
trog 4y ago
They should go old school and call it Clippy. That would be amazing.
- ChatGTP 4y ago
  I already know many people who are calling it "Clippy", seems to be the unofficial name for it within circles I frequent ha
arcanemachiner 4y ago
Microsoft Subsystem for AI.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Microsoft Subsystem for Automatic Interpolation.
casebash 4y ago
I actually think that open source AI will be a terrible idea for sufficiently advance AI for the same reasons that open source nukes or bioweapons would be a mistake. So I'd be very happy to see them change their name to ClosedAI.
- arlcode 4y ago
  That may well be but a single for profit company like Microsoft will be a terrible guardian of that. Future OpenAI usage limitations: - anything illegal in the US and your country - anything MS deems immoral and ethically problematic - and anything that competes with Microsoft.

blackoil 4y ago

It may not be 'Open' in sense of open-source or free, but it is open that I can access it and use it in my projects. Before this companies like Google/Facebook had such models but closed in sense that we can get some papers and blog posts but can't rely on them to build our startup. Because of financial and people resources required, availability of data etc. rest always stayed. Now I can use ChatGPT, Gpt-3/4, Whisper etc. at a reasonable cost and it is forcing rest of the industry to also "Open" up.

otabdeveloper4 4y ago
That, like, an incredibly low bar as to what's considered "open". (For all we know ChatGPT might be just an outsourced Indian call center under the hood. We don't actually know how it works.)
- ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
  OpenishAI The Indian was too expensive, it is a Kenyan [1]. [1] "OpenAI Used Kenyan Workers on Less Than $2 Per Hour to Make ChatGPT Less Toxic" https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers

fsckboy 4y ago

on the meaning of open, a tangential issue, let's have Sherman set the wayback machine to when the word "open" first started being used. "OK Mr Peabody" open has a number of meanings that are useful, but have been overwhelmed by the concept of open source. but open standards used to be the meaning. "ethernet is this, here's how you talk to it, but we're not going to write the code for you" (i'm not claiming that ethernet was originally an open standard, just using that as an example of what an open standard means) and hardware manufacturers used to include blueprints/schematics (for repair, or for interconnection, for example) and commercial software vendors would show you the source code, but at the same time, you weren't being given intellectual property rights or licenses to anything, it was just part of what was required to encourage customers to stick with the product by making it easier to fit in where it was going. And all of this was a really useful kind of openness. Just mentioning it because when people talk about how open OpenAI is, I'm never quite sure what they're expecting (I don't mind any expectation, not judging, I just don't know)

kergonath 4y ago
> open has a number of meanings that are useful, but have been overwhelmed by the concept of open source. How is Open Source not open? You have the source, and it is open (you can modify, hack, and distribute it). Hence, “Open Source”. What’s wrong with it? > but open standards used to be the meaning. "ethernet is this, here's how you talk to it, but we're not going to write the code for you" (i'm not claiming that ethernet was originally an open standard, just using that as an example of what an open standard means) Open standards are not better than Open Source, if you go that way. Most of them are not free, for a start. > and hardware manufacturers used to include blueprints/schematics (for repair, or for interconnection, for example) and commercial software vendors would show you the source code, snip That is a fantasised past. Some companies did; most companies did not. Just as nowadays.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  i didn't say open source is not open, i said that other things that are not open-source can also be called open. OpenAI is not called OpensourceAI because that's not the extent of what they meant. I didn't say open standards are better than open source, I said open standards are also open. don't have time to read the rest of your comment, chatgpt's waiting for me on hold and getting impatient.

recuter 4y ago

Now that it runs on our laptops a lot of the initial shock, mystique, and novelty has already worn off, just like with DALL-E before it. What the leaks show is that the community can run circles around OpenAI and the others when it comes to optimizing these things and taking them in interesting directions on a shoe string budget. For example of what one sesh of tinkering can produce: https://github.com/geohot/tinygrad/blob/master/examples/llama.py#L264-L347 https://github.com/geohot/tinygrad/blob/master/examples/llam... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nctqc8FBJ2U&t=4954s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nctqc8FBJ2U&t=4954s The cat is out of the bag, you don't need a beowulf cluster of A100's and unlimited Azure credits. You do need a budget to train that is out of reach for hobbyists but the moat is not insurmountable and I don't think VC's will be scared off anymore as a lot of startup ideas are viable and a lot of outsiders can demonstrably make a real go of it. Time for BasedAI. Game on.

can_center_divs 4y ago
Yeah, the community always seems to figure out how to do things more effective. My girlfriend asked me if I could transcribe some audio files for her with my "programming stuff". I immediately thought of Whisper from OpenAI. I first used the official CLI tool. With the largest model it took long 8 hours to transcribe a 30 min long file. I noticed it was running on the CPU - tried switching it to use the GPU instead with no luck. Running it on WSL was probably not helping. Then I found this gem: https://github.com/Const-me/Whisper https://github.com/Const-me/Whisper A C++ Windows implementation of Whisper. I opened the program, fed it with the largest model and the file. The transcript was done in 4 minutes, instead of 8 hours... Downside? The program has a GUI, lol. Of course, I could probably get the CLI tool to run on the GPU with some tinkering and installing some Nvidia packages for Whisper to use. But frankly, I have so little experience with that kind of stuff, that installing the Windows implementation was a much easier choice.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
FooBarWidget 4y ago
ChatGPT can run on our laptops? How? The only thing I could find was that it can't because it requires 128 GB VRAM.

donpark 4y ago

Neither their name nor history matter to me so, as long as their services are useful and pricing is reasonable, I will continue using OpenAI services.

arlcode 4y ago
That's a reasonable position to take and probably makes a lot of business sense. Yet it's great to see that there are alternatives emerging as this forces OpenAI/Microsoft to innovate and hopefully limits their ability to hike up prices once they've captured the market in a year or two. We don't really need another quasi uncontested tech monopoly

deafpolygon 4y ago

AAAS (AI as a Service) You heard it here first.

yegle 4y ago

Perhaps worth noting that Anthropic was founded by former OpenAI employees after the funding from the Microsoft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic

jokoon 4y ago

I wish we could interview those scientists to hear what they think of this AGI goal. I'm not convinced this will work.

renewiltord 4y ago

OpenAI are legends. They gave us fire. Until then we only heard about this tech from inside Google. It was always like "AI ethicists think this is too dangerous" and so we couldn't have it. Each time, OpenAI made it happen. They were the driving force behind all of this stuff. Dall E changed the game entirely. ChatGPT changed the game again! Lots of credit to Stability.AI - absolutely grand work by then. But OpenAI took what was once the tool of wizards in secret towers and gave it to all of us. Then Stability and Meta gave us the means to build the tools. Who would have thought that Mark Zuckerberg would be crucial to the democratization of cutting edge tech. What a legend!

golol 4y ago

I think one should also acknowledge that OpenAI has been perhaps the leading provider of cutting edge AI to the public. They let the public play against Dota Five, they provide their GPT playground and API, and they were the first to give something to the public with Dalle2 too. From the perspective of a developer this os mot very open, but from the perspective of the public it is quite open. But more "open access" or "open visibility" instead of "open source". What they really don't want is that google or whatever develops an AGI secretly.

Exendroinients 4y ago

[flagged]