4 ms·

Where every idiot with a Google account/Microsoft account/phone number can sign up for their service and start churning out tokens per second by the query, I'd

by zamnos 4y ago

Where every idiot with a Google account/Microsoft account/phone number can sign up for their service and start churning out tokens per second by the query, I'd say it's pretty open to the public. The far more closed alternative would be to keep it invite only, granted only towards a set of elites, at select companies. Only OpenAI knows how much $20/user is charging them, but for the price insensitive wealthy, after being given a demo of the technology, I could see those that get it easily paying thousands a month for access. We, the general public, wouldn't be able to keep up with the UnopenAI-productivity-enhanced. Sure we'd all love if the GPT-4 model was available via BitTorrent, on agreeable licensing terms, but a truly closed, private, version looks far more dystopian for the future of society.

buildbot 4y ago
That’s what open meant from what I understood, that the models would be open for use and not just for improving google search or better ads. OpenAI could have tried to become a B2B and not reveal anything about their tech, and simply have sold low code tools or something
- shotnothing 4y ago
  They started out as an nonprofit organization. The first 'B' in B2B was not a thing when they came up with the name OpenAI. They used to release actual open-source stuff like the Gym.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
RobotToaster 4y ago
I guess GPT is advanced enough to write HN posts now?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- vasco 4y ago
  I believe the guidelines already cover this in: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." But with the amount of comments nowadays just dismissing someone else's comment as "did GPT write this" I wonder if HN should call it out specifically. It gets really tiring.
  - zamnos 4y ago
    Thanks
- kodah 4y ago
  Honestly, as bad of a take as OPs comment is calling people robots on the internet in any serious manner is also pretty bad form.
  - zamnos 4y ago
    Thanks. :)
  - RobotToaster 4y ago
    >in any serious manner It was intended as a joke, I guess I just found out HN strips emoticons.
- zamnos 4y ago
  I was wondering when I'd get accused of that, so thanks! I'm just practicing writing (and like writing in general), as suggested by an HN post the other day. For funsies, I asked ChatGPT to > write 7 sentences about why openai should be considered open because they provide the service to the general public. compare this to a different reality where ClosedAI only sells access to a private list of elites. What it wrote is > OpenAI's commitment to openness is demonstrated by their decision to provide their services to the general public. By doing so, they are enabling individuals and organizations from all backgrounds to benefit from the latest advancements in artificial intelligence technology. This inclusivity promotes innovation and progress, as it ensures that a wider range of people have access to the tools and resources needed to develop new and groundbreaking AI applications. > In contrast, if ClosedAI were to only sell access to a private list of elites, this would limit the benefits of their technology to a select few, perpetuating inequality and limiting the potential for progress. This closed approach would stifle innovation and hamper the growth of the AI industry, as only a small group of people would have access to the necessary tools and resources. > OpenAI's commitment to openness also promotes transparency and accountability. By making their services available to the general public, they are subjecting themselves to public scrutiny and input. This level of openness ensures that their technology is being developed in a responsible and ethical manner, and that it is aligned with the needs and interests of society as a whole. > Moreover, by providing access to their technology to the general public, OpenAI is also democratizing the benefits of AI. This means that people from all backgrounds and walks of life have the opportunity to use AI technology to address the challenges and opportunities that they face in their daily lives. > In contrast, if AI technology were only available to a select few, it would perpetuate existing inequalities and reinforce existing power structures. By making their technology open and accessible, OpenAI is helping to level the playing field and promote a more equitable and just society. > In addition, OpenAI's openness is beneficial to the AI industry as a whole. By making their technology available to the general public, they are helping to create a more vibrant and diverse ecosystem of AI applications and use cases. This diversity of perspectives and applications will help to drive innovation and progress in the industry, creating new opportunities for growth and development. > Finally, OpenAI's commitment to openness is also aligned with the broader principles of the open-source software movement. By making their technology open and accessible, they are enabling other developers to build upon their work and contribute to the development of new and innovative AI applications. This collaborative approach to development is key to promoting innovation and progress in the industry, and OpenAI's commitment to openness is helping to lead the way in this regard. Which is hilariously more than 4 sentences, but I'm not on GPT-4. I might be out of a job. Now if only I were getting paid by the word to post here and aren't just procrastinating.
calny 4y ago
This is a good point, and is one of the pitfalls of arguments suggesting that tech cos like OpenAI shouldn’t release things like GPT 4 because there’s too much possible harm. Say OpenAI, Deepmind, and similar AI orgs all decided not to release their best models. They’d certainly still build the models unless we somehow banned AI r&d (a terrible idea). And then we’d end up in a world where only big tech and select licensee partners and elites are enhanced with AI. As you say, the general public wouldn’t be able to keep up. That’s a far worse scenario than the present.
chpatrick 4y ago
I wonder if OpenAI's goal is to keep potentially dangerous tech from leaking while making their supposedly safe solution so cheap that it discourages reckless competition.
- barrysteve 4y ago
  I wonder if an AI researcher would love to build a better interpreter for reverse engineering LLMs and would want to try it on an LLM clone of OpenAI's setup. The cloud-service moat is the strongest security for OpenAI.
- nullsense 4y ago
  They have stated in their interviews that developing an AGI could be great or terrible for humanity, and it's ultimately uncontrollable, so the best way to get the best outcome is to set the initial conditions under which the technology gets developed to be as favorable as possible.
ribosometronome 4y ago
You think "Open" in OpenAI was meant to mean open in the way a 7-11 will be open? And not open source (or open research/patents)?
- shagie 4y ago
  As a research lab that didn't have any sort of product for the better part of a decade, open (to me) meant "we encourage people to publish research under a permissive license and full copies to preprint servers." Scroll through https://openai.com/research https://openai.com/research and consider if that's open research or not.
- 93po 4y ago
  Yes, sort of. Their announcement blog post: https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai "Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole" "We believe AI should be an extension of individual human wills and, in the spirit of liberty, as broadly and evenly distributed as possible." Their overall goals and mission are still aligned with what they're doing today. They're providing open access to the platform. That may not sound like much, but imagine if Google was the one that made GPT-4. Do you think Google would have an open API to use it? I find it super unlikely. However, to your point, that blog also has this: "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." Clearly they had hopes and aims that aren't as closely aligned to present day as we'd all hope. "We’ll freely collaborate with others across many institutions and expect to work with companies to research and deploy new technologies." They are doing this, though.
gl-prod 4y ago
It requires a phone number. They're closed to a bunch of countries.
- zamnos 4y ago
  I'm not in other countries so this is a genuine question - does using a Google or Microsoft login not obviate that need?
  - gl-prod 4y ago
    You get redirected to enter your name and phone. Did it not ask you? edit: You can't even access parts of openai sites from the "naughty" countries.
    - return_to_monke 4y ago
      they are probably banned from doing any business in eg. Russia
      - gl-prod 4y ago
        I'm from Egypt and banned.
    - zamnos 4y ago
      I'll save you from my diatribe about the pitfalls of you-as-a-user of using Google or Microsoft for login. But because of that, I don't know and so can only guess at what level OpenAI choses to rely on Google/Microsoft to validate accounts.
acedTrex 4y ago
I reject this idea that just because its more broadly available for purchase makes it ok to coop the term "open" in this context. It's clearly legal etc but its a shitty practice that should be continually called out and mocked
- zamnos 4y ago
  I agree, but PublicAccessAI doesn't roll off the tongue quite so well, and brings to mind images of bad public access cable TV shows. Hardly the image a cutting-edge company wants to project.
  - shotnothing 4y ago
    Doesn't justify the use of Open without being actually open. People associate the prefix Open with OSS, and just because PublicAcessAI sounds bad doesn't mean you need to call it OpenAI
snickerbockers 4y ago
If you think the bar for "open" is that low then i guess Windows is "open" too.
- zamnos 4y ago
  Compared to IBM of yore, where only wizards were allowed in the computer room, you wouldn't be wrong. It's not open source according to Richard Stallman's Free Software Foundation, and a pox on OpenAI for being misleading with their name (though they're far from the first company to do so). But keeping in mind the revolution that was the PC, and how the reverse engineered BIOS opened up the world of computing, whippersnappers these days would do well to learn their history. The Dream Machine by Waldrop is a good one to start with.
m348e912 4y ago
I don't want to give openAI ideas (not that I need to), but I see where this is going. I expect to see large-scale pricing stratification to use OpenAI depending on who is using it. $20/mo for the average user, but I expect to see LawyerOpenAI, PhysicianOpenAI, and FinanceGuyOpenAI where OpenAI has access to specific training data that makes it significantly more useful for the particular profession and perhaps it's skills and knowledge will be neutered otherwise. Professionals/Companies will fork over hundreds or thousands of dollars per month, like they do to Bloomberg or NexusLexus in order to be most effective at their job

by zamnos 4y ago

buildbot 4y ago

That’s what open meant from what I understood, that the models would be open for use and not just for improving google search or better ads. OpenAI could have tried to become a B2B and not reveal anything about their tech, and simply have sold low code tools or something

shotnothing 4y ago
They started out as an nonprofit organization. The first 'B' in B2B was not a thing when they came up with the name OpenAI. They used to release actual open-source stuff like the Gym.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

RobotToaster 4y ago

I guess GPT is advanced enough to write HN posts now?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vasco 4y ago
I believe the guidelines already cover this in: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." But with the amount of comments nowadays just dismissing someone else's comment as "did GPT write this" I wonder if HN should call it out specifically. It gets really tiring.
- zamnos 4y ago
  Thanks
kodah 4y ago
Honestly, as bad of a take as OPs comment is calling people robots on the internet in any serious manner is also pretty bad form.
- zamnos 4y ago
  Thanks. :)
- RobotToaster 4y ago
  >in any serious manner It was intended as a joke, I guess I just found out HN strips emoticons.
zamnos 4y ago
I was wondering when I'd get accused of that, so thanks! I'm just practicing writing (and like writing in general), as suggested by an HN post the other day. For funsies, I asked ChatGPT to > write 7 sentences about why openai should be considered open because they provide the service to the general public. compare this to a different reality where ClosedAI only sells access to a private list of elites. What it wrote is > OpenAI's commitment to openness is demonstrated by their decision to provide their services to the general public. By doing so, they are enabling individuals and organizations from all backgrounds to benefit from the latest advancements in artificial intelligence technology. This inclusivity promotes innovation and progress, as it ensures that a wider range of people have access to the tools and resources needed to develop new and groundbreaking AI applications. > In contrast, if ClosedAI were to only sell access to a private list of elites, this would limit the benefits of their technology to a select few, perpetuating inequality and limiting the potential for progress. This closed approach would stifle innovation and hamper the growth of the AI industry, as only a small group of people would have access to the necessary tools and resources. > OpenAI's commitment to openness also promotes transparency and accountability. By making their services available to the general public, they are subjecting themselves to public scrutiny and input. This level of openness ensures that their technology is being developed in a responsible and ethical manner, and that it is aligned with the needs and interests of society as a whole. > Moreover, by providing access to their technology to the general public, OpenAI is also democratizing the benefits of AI. This means that people from all backgrounds and walks of life have the opportunity to use AI technology to address the challenges and opportunities that they face in their daily lives. > In contrast, if AI technology were only available to a select few, it would perpetuate existing inequalities and reinforce existing power structures. By making their technology open and accessible, OpenAI is helping to level the playing field and promote a more equitable and just society. > In addition, OpenAI's openness is beneficial to the AI industry as a whole. By making their technology available to the general public, they are helping to create a more vibrant and diverse ecosystem of AI applications and use cases. This diversity of perspectives and applications will help to drive innovation and progress in the industry, creating new opportunities for growth and development. > Finally, OpenAI's commitment to openness is also aligned with the broader principles of the open-source software movement. By making their technology open and accessible, they are enabling other developers to build upon their work and contribute to the development of new and innovative AI applications. This collaborative approach to development is key to promoting innovation and progress in the industry, and OpenAI's commitment to openness is helping to lead the way in this regard. Which is hilariously more than 4 sentences, but I'm not on GPT-4. I might be out of a job. Now if only I were getting paid by the word to post here and aren't just procrastinating.

calny 4y ago

This is a good point, and is one of the pitfalls of arguments suggesting that tech cos like OpenAI shouldn’t release things like GPT 4 because there’s too much possible harm. Say OpenAI, Deepmind, and similar AI orgs all decided not to release their best models. They’d certainly still build the models unless we somehow banned AI r&d (a terrible idea). And then we’d end up in a world where only big tech and select licensee partners and elites are enhanced with AI. As you say, the general public wouldn’t be able to keep up. That’s a far worse scenario than the present.

chpatrick 4y ago

I wonder if OpenAI's goal is to keep potentially dangerous tech from leaking while making their supposedly safe solution so cheap that it discourages reckless competition.

barrysteve 4y ago
I wonder if an AI researcher would love to build a better interpreter for reverse engineering LLMs and would want to try it on an LLM clone of OpenAI's setup. The cloud-service moat is the strongest security for OpenAI.
nullsense 4y ago
They have stated in their interviews that developing an AGI could be great or terrible for humanity, and it's ultimately uncontrollable, so the best way to get the best outcome is to set the initial conditions under which the technology gets developed to be as favorable as possible.

ribosometronome 4y ago

You think "Open" in OpenAI was meant to mean open in the way a 7-11 will be open? And not open source (or open research/patents)?

shagie 4y ago
As a research lab that didn't have any sort of product for the better part of a decade, open (to me) meant "we encourage people to publish research under a permissive license and full copies to preprint servers." Scroll through https://openai.com/research https://openai.com/research and consider if that's open research or not.
93po 4y ago
Yes, sort of. Their announcement blog post: https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai "Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole" "We believe AI should be an extension of individual human wills and, in the spirit of liberty, as broadly and evenly distributed as possible." Their overall goals and mission are still aligned with what they're doing today. They're providing open access to the platform. That may not sound like much, but imagine if Google was the one that made GPT-4. Do you think Google would have an open API to use it? I find it super unlikely. However, to your point, that blog also has this: "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." Clearly they had hopes and aims that aren't as closely aligned to present day as we'd all hope. "We’ll freely collaborate with others across many institutions and expect to work with companies to research and deploy new technologies." They are doing this, though.

gl-prod 4y ago

It requires a phone number. They're closed to a bunch of countries.

zamnos 4y ago
I'm not in other countries so this is a genuine question - does using a Google or Microsoft login not obviate that need?
- gl-prod 4y ago
  You get redirected to enter your name and phone. Did it not ask you? edit: You can't even access parts of openai sites from the "naughty" countries.
  - return_to_monke 4y ago
    they are probably banned from doing any business in eg. Russia
    - gl-prod 4y ago
      I'm from Egypt and banned.
  - zamnos 4y ago
    I'll save you from my diatribe about the pitfalls of you-as-a-user of using Google or Microsoft for login. But because of that, I don't know and so can only guess at what level OpenAI choses to rely on Google/Microsoft to validate accounts.

acedTrex 4y ago

I reject this idea that just because its more broadly available for purchase makes it ok to coop the term "open" in this context. It's clearly legal etc but its a shitty practice that should be continually called out and mocked

zamnos 4y ago
I agree, but PublicAccessAI doesn't roll off the tongue quite so well, and brings to mind images of bad public access cable TV shows. Hardly the image a cutting-edge company wants to project.
- shotnothing 4y ago
  Doesn't justify the use of Open without being actually open. People associate the prefix Open with OSS, and just because PublicAcessAI sounds bad doesn't mean you need to call it OpenAI

snickerbockers 4y ago

If you think the bar for "open" is that low then i guess Windows is "open" too.

zamnos 4y ago
Compared to IBM of yore, where only wizards were allowed in the computer room, you wouldn't be wrong. It's not open source according to Richard Stallman's Free Software Foundation, and a pox on OpenAI for being misleading with their name (though they're far from the first company to do so). But keeping in mind the revolution that was the PC, and how the reverse engineered BIOS opened up the world of computing, whippersnappers these days would do well to learn their history. The Dream Machine by Waldrop is a good one to start with.

m348e912 4y ago

I don't want to give openAI ideas (not that I need to), but I see where this is going. I expect to see large-scale pricing stratification to use OpenAI depending on who is using it. $20/mo for the average user, but I expect to see LawyerOpenAI, PhysicianOpenAI, and FinanceGuyOpenAI where OpenAI has access to specific training data that makes it significantly more useful for the particular profession and perhaps it's skills and knowledge will be neutered otherwise. Professionals/Companies will fork over hundreds or thousands of dollars per month, like they do to Bloomberg or NexusLexus in order to be most effective at their job