4 ms·

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 sour

by 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.
permo-w 4y ago
the issue is that they started out open source. GPT2 is entirely open-source
4gotunameagain 4y ago
A quote from Introducing OpenAI [1]: Because of AI's surprising history, it's hard to predict when human-level AI might come within reach. When it does, it'll be important to have a leading research institution which can prioritize a good outcome for all over its own self-interest. We're hoping to grow OpenAI into such an institution. As a non-profit, our aim is to build value for everyone rather than shareholders. Researchers will be strongly encouraged to publish their work, whether as papers, blog posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with the world. We'll freely collaborate with others across many institutions and expect to work with companies to research and deploy new technologies. To me at least, having a walled garden and charging for you API, without releasing weights or other critical details, goes against this sentiment. [1] https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai/ https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai/
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- intev 4y ago
  Are we reading the same thing? It pretty much sounds like they are doing what they said they are going to do? Expecting some sort of free API feels like entitlement to me. Have you tried running the models? Or training them? They get expensive very very fast. They charge a pretty reasonable amount all things considered. If they didn't have the name "Open" in them and or started as a subsidiary of one of the other 3 tech companies things would have gone a very very different route.
  - 4gotunameagain 4y ago
    They charge that amount (on loss) to create a trench that will not allow a truly open model to proliferate, as happened with Dall-E and stable diffusion. And no, I would not train or run the models, even if they released them. This does not mean I cannot point out the hypocrisy.
    - intev 4y ago
      > They charge that amount (on loss) Is this a fact or are you speculating? Because the rest of your sentence falls apart if this is not true.
jstummbillig 4y ago
Only within the context of programmer cults would people be unironically offended that a term as abstract as "open" not be exclusively used to mean "open source".
cobbal 4y ago
If they were the first organization known as "OpenXY", then maybe they would have a point, but there's a long tradition of open source libraries/standards using this convention that makes this especially aggravating. Examples I can think of off the top of my head: OpenGL (1992), OpenAL (2003?), OpenCL (2009), OpenCV (2000). While looking up those dates though, it seems like OpenAL is now under a proprietary license, which annoys me for the same reason OpenAI annoys me.
GaggiX 4y ago
In the 98-page document on GPT-4, I could not find anything about the actual architecture and details of the model, not only are they now not releasing the models but now also their actual overview.

by swyx 4y ago

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.

permo-w 4y ago

the issue is that they started out open source. GPT2 is entirely open-source

4gotunameagain 4y ago

A quote from Introducing OpenAI [1]: Because of AI's surprising history, it's hard to predict when human-level AI might come within reach. When it does, it'll be important to have a leading research institution which can prioritize a good outcome for all over its own self-interest. We're hoping to grow OpenAI into such an institution. As a non-profit, our aim is to build value for everyone rather than shareholders. Researchers will be strongly encouraged to publish their work, whether as papers, blog posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with the world. We'll freely collaborate with others across many institutions and expect to work with companies to research and deploy new technologies. To me at least, having a walled garden and charging for you API, without releasing weights or other critical details, goes against this sentiment. [1] https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai/ https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai/

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
intev 4y ago
Are we reading the same thing? It pretty much sounds like they are doing what they said they are going to do? Expecting some sort of free API feels like entitlement to me. Have you tried running the models? Or training them? They get expensive very very fast. They charge a pretty reasonable amount all things considered. If they didn't have the name "Open" in them and or started as a subsidiary of one of the other 3 tech companies things would have gone a very very different route.
- 4gotunameagain 4y ago
  They charge that amount (on loss) to create a trench that will not allow a truly open model to proliferate, as happened with Dall-E and stable diffusion. And no, I would not train or run the models, even if they released them. This does not mean I cannot point out the hypocrisy.
  - intev 4y ago
    > They charge that amount (on loss) Is this a fact or are you speculating? Because the rest of your sentence falls apart if this is not true.

jstummbillig 4y ago

Only within the context of programmer cults would people be unironically offended that a term as abstract as "open" not be exclusively used to mean "open source".

cobbal 4y ago

If they were the first organization known as "OpenXY", then maybe they would have a point, but there's a long tradition of open source libraries/standards using this convention that makes this especially aggravating. Examples I can think of off the top of my head: OpenGL (1992), OpenAL (2003?), OpenCL (2009), OpenCV (2000). While looking up those dates though, it seems like OpenAL is now under a proprietary license, which annoys me for the same reason OpenAI annoys me.

GaggiX 4y ago

In the 98-page document on GPT-4, I could not find anything about the actual architecture and details of the model, not only are they now not releasing the models but now also their actual overview.