6 ms·

Is there anything we could do to have them stop calling themselves OpenAI ? They are so far from open at this point. In Germany at least, you're not allowed t

Is there anything we could do to have them stop calling themselves OpenAI ? They are so far from open at this point. In Germany at least, you're not allowed to have a misleading name for your company

ryanwaggoner 4y ago
Haven't we beat this dead horse enough? Looking forward to using GPT to hide recurring threads like this in the future...
basch 4y ago
Should Microsoft be forced to rename itself to Microsoftandhard because they make hardware? Open could now mean available to use for free.
- sn_master 4y ago
  or using open sourced (public) material.
- lukeramsden 4y ago
  > Should Microsoft be forced to rename itself to Microsoftandhard because they make hardware? I and I suspect many others would not be averse to this
  - nickpeterson 4y ago
    I think macrohard would be a great name for a hardware company. I don’t think they could sue you…
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- haswell 4y ago
  > Open could now mean available to use for free. These words are not synonymous with each other: “open” is not inherently free, “free” is not inherently open, and “free” is not inherently “Free”. They each capture notions that are often orthogonal, occasionally related, and almost always generate tedious debates about freedom vs. free goods, open-ness vs. open-source, etc. But setting all of that aside, Microsoft never claimed (until recent shifts towards embracing FOSS) to be building an open and non-profit foundation. The criticisms of OpenAI are reasonable to an extent, not because they are not open, but because they made claims about openness that are looking less and less likely to be true over time.
- rvz 4y ago
  > Open could now mean available to use for free. Except they already drew that line long ago, when they started out open-sourcing their papers, models and code. As soon as they took VC capital, it is hardly 'Open' is it? Especially when they are now giving excuses for closing off their research?: From the technical paper [0] >> Given both the competitive landscape and the safety implications of large-scale models like GPT-4, this report contains no further details about the architecture (including model size), hardware, training compute, dataset construction, training method, or similar. At this point, they are no better than DeepMind. [0] https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf
swyx 4y ago
contrarian view - they are actually pretty open. sharing GPT, CLIP, Whisper, and high level details of alphastar, dalle, and others. they're just not open source. they never called themselves OpenSourceAI. people get an inch of openness and expect the doors wide open and i think that is unfairly hostile.
- shamino 4y ago
  agreed - can you think of any other model that has such unrestricted release ? Open means available for wide use
  - arthurcolle 4y ago
    Stable Diffusion v1.4, v2.1 LLaMA
    - shamino 4y ago
      LLaMa technically is only limited to researchers, etc...
      - arthurcolle 4y ago
        Tell that to the magnet link I clicked on
  - sylware 4y ago
    Where is the noscript/basic (x)html interop support?
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    The actually open models like BLOOM?
  - Der_Einzige 4y ago
    Go take a look at the content of Civitai. Take everything you see there, and imagine what happens if you start prompting it with words that indicate things which may not be legal for you to see images of. Please show me viable harm of GPT-4 that is higher than the potential harm from open sourced image generators with really good fine tuning. I'll wait, most likely forever.
gunshai 4y ago
What should they be more open about?
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Ideally the algorithm and tricks they used to train the model, which they didn't disclose in their associated gpt4 technical paper. We got this far this quickly in AI research because the sector was open with results and innovations.
dnissley 4y ago
Opendoor? OpenTable? Lots of companies have "open" in their names for all sorts of different reasons.
- umeshunni 4y ago
  Open door opens some 'doors' for you to buy, open table opens up table for you to book.
  - dnissley 4y ago
    And OpenAI opens up interfaces to large AI models.
leesec 4y ago
This gets brought up in every thread involving the words OpenAI, can we maybe just talk about the release?
- cypress66 4y ago
  No because it's not the same, it's getting worse. With every model they get more closed. This is the first time they are so closed that they don't even tell you the parameter count.
oytis 4y ago
One might argue if it's available for anyone to buy it's pretty open. Many initiatives with "open" in their names are open to that definition.
twobitshifter 4y ago
I don’t like the name either, but I don’t think there’s anything descriptive enough in ‘open’ that a lawyer couldn’t explain away. We’re used to open meaning a specific thing in software, but a lot of leeway is given in branding.
mr90210 4y ago
Out of curiosity, what do you want Open to mean?
jjj33jjj33 4y ago
[flagged]
00F_ 4y ago
people come out of the woodwork to rage about FSD but openAI, which is actually a sinister and evil company, gets the occasional snide remark about their name which is much more dishonest than FSD. at least tesla claims that they aspire to make FSD an accurate name but openai is a straight up lie.

Is there anything we could do to have them stop calling themselves OpenAI ? They are so far from open at this point. In Germany at least, you're not allowed to have a misleading name for your company

ryanwaggoner 4y ago

Haven't we beat this dead horse enough? Looking forward to using GPT to hide recurring threads like this in the future...

basch 4y ago

Should Microsoft be forced to rename itself to Microsoftandhard because they make hardware? Open could now mean available to use for free.

sn_master 4y ago
or using open sourced (public) material.
lukeramsden 4y ago
> Should Microsoft be forced to rename itself to Microsoftandhard because they make hardware? I and I suspect many others would not be averse to this
- nickpeterson 4y ago
  I think macrohard would be a great name for a hardware company. I don’t think they could sue you…
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
haswell 4y ago
> Open could now mean available to use for free. These words are not synonymous with each other: “open” is not inherently free, “free” is not inherently open, and “free” is not inherently “Free”. They each capture notions that are often orthogonal, occasionally related, and almost always generate tedious debates about freedom vs. free goods, open-ness vs. open-source, etc. But setting all of that aside, Microsoft never claimed (until recent shifts towards embracing FOSS) to be building an open and non-profit foundation. The criticisms of OpenAI are reasonable to an extent, not because they are not open, but because they made claims about openness that are looking less and less likely to be true over time.
rvz 4y ago
> Open could now mean available to use for free. Except they already drew that line long ago, when they started out open-sourcing their papers, models and code. As soon as they took VC capital, it is hardly 'Open' is it? Especially when they are now giving excuses for closing off their research?: From the technical paper [0] >> Given both the competitive landscape and the safety implications of large-scale models like GPT-4, this report contains no further details about the architecture (including model size), hardware, training compute, dataset construction, training method, or similar. At this point, they are no better than DeepMind. [0] https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf

swyx 4y ago

contrarian view - they are actually pretty open. sharing GPT, CLIP, Whisper, and high level details of alphastar, dalle, and others. they're just not open source. they never called themselves OpenSourceAI. people get an inch of openness and expect the doors wide open and i think that is unfairly hostile.

shamino 4y ago
agreed - can you think of any other model that has such unrestricted release ? Open means available for wide use
- arthurcolle 4y ago
  Stable Diffusion v1.4, v2.1 LLaMA
  - shamino 4y ago
    LLaMa technically is only limited to researchers, etc...
    - arthurcolle 4y ago
      Tell that to the magnet link I clicked on
- sylware 4y ago
  Where is the noscript/basic (x)html interop support?
- whatshisface 4y ago
  The actually open models like BLOOM?
- Der_Einzige 4y ago
  Go take a look at the content of Civitai. Take everything you see there, and imagine what happens if you start prompting it with words that indicate things which may not be legal for you to see images of. Please show me viable harm of GPT-4 that is higher than the potential harm from open sourced image generators with really good fine tuning. I'll wait, most likely forever.

gunshai 4y ago

What should they be more open about?

hackerlight 4y ago
Ideally the algorithm and tricks they used to train the model, which they didn't disclose in their associated gpt4 technical paper. We got this far this quickly in AI research because the sector was open with results and innovations.

dnissley 4y ago

Opendoor? OpenTable? Lots of companies have "open" in their names for all sorts of different reasons.

umeshunni 4y ago
Open door opens some 'doors' for you to buy, open table opens up table for you to book.
- dnissley 4y ago
  And OpenAI opens up interfaces to large AI models.

leesec 4y ago

This gets brought up in every thread involving the words OpenAI, can we maybe just talk about the release?

cypress66 4y ago
No because it's not the same, it's getting worse. With every model they get more closed. This is the first time they are so closed that they don't even tell you the parameter count.

oytis 4y ago

One might argue if it's available for anyone to buy it's pretty open. Many initiatives with "open" in their names are open to that definition.

twobitshifter 4y ago

I don’t like the name either, but I don’t think there’s anything descriptive enough in ‘open’ that a lawyer couldn’t explain away. We’re used to open meaning a specific thing in software, but a lot of leeway is given in branding.

mr90210 4y ago

Out of curiosity, what do you want Open to mean?

jjj33jjj33 4y ago

[flagged]

00F_ 4y ago

people come out of the woodwork to rage about FSD but openAI, which is actually a sinister and evil company, gets the occasional snide remark about their name which is much more dishonest than FSD. at least tesla claims that they aspire to make FSD an accurate name but openai is a straight up lie.