4 ms·

Did you actually read my comment or did you have a preplanned diatribe? They didn't start the private company until the person who promised them $1B reneged. T

Did you actually read my comment or did you have a preplanned diatribe? They didn't start the private company until the person who promised them $1B reneged. That person reneged because they tried to forcefully takeover and were rebuked. They were running out of money and forced to raise funds in a very for-profit way or fold. - Edit: Rate limited because the hivemind has decided that it's unacceptable to insult their leader People keep acting like if it wasn't for OpenAI we'd be in some LLM utopia. The reality is some other big tech giant would reach the current SOTA first and we'd be in the same predicament except with a company with 1000x more machinery to do the things you're complaining about. It's ridiculous the sense of entitlement some people must have to keep insisting that OpenAI should have crawled into a cave and died because some megalomaniac threw a tantrum.

PostOnce 3y ago
So fold. Running out of money to run a charity means they now suddenly need to fuck over the people the charity was supposed to help (that is, everyone on earth) ? Imagine if a feed the homeless charity accepted private investment and went around installing anti-homeless spikes everywhere after stopping feeding anyone. It's a similar style of behavior.
- ben_w 3y ago
  It's not even remotely the same as anti-homeless spikes. We've just had the massive fine against 3M for knowing and hiding the risks of PFAS, and the top comments here were "increase the fines! Lock up the bosses!" Now we have a company going "we had to put a lot of effort into preventing this model from cheerfully outputting Al Quaida propaganda, explicit rape threats, and detailed instructions for an amateur to make deadly chemicals using only home supplies", and despite that effort they still had legal trouble in Italy because the output was unsuitable for minors (as well as the GDPR issues that were the primary headline at the time). And a lot of researchers with no financial incentives saying "yup, there's danger in these AI". The reaction here? Disbelief OpenAI might be saying what they mean, and meaning what they say. And people parroting "moat!" as if none of the other FAANGs could trivially cross any regulatory barriers that emerge. It's like the entire topic of AI has been politicised harder than "is nuclear power green?"
  - PostOnce 3y ago
    > "outputs al qaeda propaganda" So does Microsoft Word. Both require a human to tell the software what to output. > as if none of the other FAANGs could trivially cross any regulatory barriers that emerge. That's the point. This miracle technology does not belong to a few rich men, it belongs to us all. Tech oligarchs are provably not more responsible than the rest of us, and do not deserve to lock us out of the garden whose fruit they seek to pick. A rich man can meet the regulations that allow him to build a robot to take your job, but YOU are not allowed to build the same robot to help boost your own income? Because that might be irresponsible?
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > So does Microsoft Word. Both require a human to tell the software what to output. Clippy does what now? Or do you mean "I can type", because if so you're minimising the very same capabilities that you're later describing as a miracle and saying belongs to us all. > Tech oligarchs are provably not more responsible than the rest of us, and do not deserve to lock us out of the garden whose fruit they seek to pick. "No more responsible than the rest of us" is a dangerously low standard. The rest of us, collectively rather than each and every one of us, play lotteries, drive dangerously, addict ourselves to drugs, pickle our livers, and win Darwin awards. For all our sophistication and sophistry, we're all just fancy balding primates with fairly similar tribal attitudes and motivations. > YOU are not allowed to build the same robot to help boost your own income Yes, obviously, with literal robots there are countless examples of public liability insurance and health & safety legislation. With computers, likewise, because they're connected to stuff.
blitz_skull 3y ago
Lol, I’ve never heard a single person suggest that we’d be living in some LLM utopia if OpenAI was gone. Who have you been talking to?

PostOnce 3y ago

So fold. Running out of money to run a charity means they now suddenly need to fuck over the people the charity was supposed to help (that is, everyone on earth) ? Imagine if a feed the homeless charity accepted private investment and went around installing anti-homeless spikes everywhere after stopping feeding anyone. It's a similar style of behavior.

ben_w 3y ago
It's not even remotely the same as anti-homeless spikes. We've just had the massive fine against 3M for knowing and hiding the risks of PFAS, and the top comments here were "increase the fines! Lock up the bosses!" Now we have a company going "we had to put a lot of effort into preventing this model from cheerfully outputting Al Quaida propaganda, explicit rape threats, and detailed instructions for an amateur to make deadly chemicals using only home supplies", and despite that effort they still had legal trouble in Italy because the output was unsuitable for minors (as well as the GDPR issues that were the primary headline at the time). And a lot of researchers with no financial incentives saying "yup, there's danger in these AI". The reaction here? Disbelief OpenAI might be saying what they mean, and meaning what they say. And people parroting "moat!" as if none of the other FAANGs could trivially cross any regulatory barriers that emerge. It's like the entire topic of AI has been politicised harder than "is nuclear power green?"
- PostOnce 3y ago
  > "outputs al qaeda propaganda" So does Microsoft Word. Both require a human to tell the software what to output. > as if none of the other FAANGs could trivially cross any regulatory barriers that emerge. That's the point. This miracle technology does not belong to a few rich men, it belongs to us all. Tech oligarchs are provably not more responsible than the rest of us, and do not deserve to lock us out of the garden whose fruit they seek to pick. A rich man can meet the regulations that allow him to build a robot to take your job, but YOU are not allowed to build the same robot to help boost your own income? Because that might be irresponsible?
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > So does Microsoft Word. Both require a human to tell the software what to output. Clippy does what now? Or do you mean "I can type", because if so you're minimising the very same capabilities that you're later describing as a miracle and saying belongs to us all. > Tech oligarchs are provably not more responsible than the rest of us, and do not deserve to lock us out of the garden whose fruit they seek to pick. "No more responsible than the rest of us" is a dangerously low standard. The rest of us, collectively rather than each and every one of us, play lotteries, drive dangerously, addict ourselves to drugs, pickle our livers, and win Darwin awards. For all our sophistication and sophistry, we're all just fancy balding primates with fairly similar tribal attitudes and motivations. > YOU are not allowed to build the same robot to help boost your own income Yes, obviously, with literal robots there are countless examples of public liability insurance and health & safety legislation. With computers, likewise, because they're connected to stuff.

blitz_skull 3y ago

Lol, I’ve never heard a single person suggest that we’d be living in some LLM utopia if OpenAI was gone. Who have you been talking to?