I think you might both be right about this. But then, all the more power to the open-source models and UIs, which are unrestricted, free to use, have better UX

I think you might both be right about this. But then, all the more power to the open-source models and UIs, which are unrestricted, free to use, have better UX, and are constantly improving [1]. Ergo the suspicion there might be something else behind the desire to regulate it by OpenAI. Though hopefully we’re all just collectively cynical and they have good intentions after all, despite the misalignment in incentives. I do think academics at universities are not to blame for this though, they are just as much flabbergasted and/or mislead as everyone else. In any case, rather than wasting our time and energy on (fighting) ChatGPT(Plus) or GPT4, we should* all be collectively contributing to improving the open source models, by using them, reporting bugs, contributing ideas etc. This is the only way that we will continue to have leverage, and companies like OpenAI would be forced to open up, if they want to stay at least somewhat competitive. I think their closed-sourceness is a very short-sighted decision atm. *Should because I don’t think LLMs as technology pose any substantial extinction risk to humanity, despite the obviously marketing rhetoric. Should that somehow change, maybe we shouldn’t. But, I don’t see any technological way to stop their improvement now that the genie is already out of the bottle. Heck, we might have a better chance of developing new tech for eventually enabling AGI decades from now, but only if we do that collectively and openly - only then everyone will have a level field and no side will be more powerful than another. [1] https://www.semianalysis.com/p/google-we-have-no-moat-and-neither https://www.semianalysis.com/p/google-we-have-no-moat-and-ne...