3 ms·

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'l

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.
    - 4gotunameagain 4y ago
      You yourself said that they get expensive very very fast. Of course I do not have an insider's view on OpenAI's economics. But let's be realistic here.
      - intev 4y ago
        > But let's be realistic here. Let's. If I were to rent an instance for short bursts of time, I would be paying many multiples over a constant use instance. If I were to guarantee usage for x years, where the larger the X, the greater the discount. So already the delta between sporadic usage, X years use is large. There is evidence for this price discrepancy within all the cloud providers so this is not speculation. The the price difference is massive. If you want to save even more cost, you could rent out VPSes or baremetal. They are insanely cheap, and compared to an AWS on demand instance the difference is night and day. Try comparing Hetzner with AWS. Hetzner, as far as I can tell, is not trying to entrench me into their system by offering extremely low prices. Nor are they a charity. I might even say they are an "open" hosting provider. To me it feels like they are passing along most of their savings and taking a small cut. This is what it feels like to me what openAI is doing. I don't think their prices are so low its unprofitable. But because of their immense scale, its so much cheaper than me running an instance. I don't have to jump into conspiracy land to come up with a reasoning.
        4gotunameagain 4y ago
        Without numbers it is all speculation.
        intev 4y ago

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.
  - 4gotunameagain 4y ago
    You yourself said that they get expensive very very fast. Of course I do not have an insider's view on OpenAI's economics. But let's be realistic here.
    - intev 4y ago
      > But let's be realistic here. Let's. If I were to rent an instance for short bursts of time, I would be paying many multiples over a constant use instance. If I were to guarantee usage for x years, where the larger the X, the greater the discount. So already the delta between sporadic usage, X years use is large. There is evidence for this price discrepancy within all the cloud providers so this is not speculation. The the price difference is massive. If you want to save even more cost, you could rent out VPSes or baremetal. They are insanely cheap, and compared to an AWS on demand instance the difference is night and day. Try comparing Hetzner with AWS. Hetzner, as far as I can tell, is not trying to entrench me into their system by offering extremely low prices. Nor are they a charity. I might even say they are an "open" hosting provider. To me it feels like they are passing along most of their savings and taking a small cut. This is what it feels like to me what openAI is doing. I don't think their prices are so low its unprofitable. But because of their immense scale, its so much cheaper than me running an instance. I don't have to jump into conspiracy land to come up with a reasoning.
      - 4gotunameagain 4y ago
        Without numbers it is all speculation.
        intev 4y ago