4 ms·

> "Open" AI, a charity to benefit us all by pushing and publishing the frontier of scientific knowledge. > Nevermind, fuckers, actually it's just to take your j

by imdsm 3y ago

> "Open" AI, a charity to benefit us all by pushing and publishing the frontier of scientific knowledge. > Nevermind, fuckers, actually it's just to take your jobs and make a few VCs richer. We'll keep the science a secret and try to pressure the government into making it illegal for you to compete with us. 1. I don't think this is the right place for this kind of content, perhaps find your way back to Twitter or Reddit 2. Have you contributed funds to OpenAI? If not, where did your sense of entitlement come from? 3. What makes you think that any of what OpenAI has produced and provided would be available without funding? I assume the answer to 1 above will be no, so, how do you expect them to build without funds? and 4. What's stopping you from creating what you thought OpenAI should be? Feel free. Nobody stopping you.

marstall 3y ago
I think his post is appropriate here, and on point. how about responding to his arguments about algorithm secrecy and the push to regulate competition?
feoren 3y ago
> 2. Have you contributed funds to OpenAI? If not, where did your sense of entitlement come from? Is your argument that we need to have given a company money before we can be opposed to their unethical business practices? We're talking about a company that wantonly disregarded copyright, broke the DMCA billions of times (proving that law is for completely destroying individuals who want to personally enjoy some media they probably otherwise wouldn't buy, not for corporations who want to hoard the wealth collectively made by all of society), charges its users even when its product is not delivered due to their own server errors, and then goes in front of congress to try to put up a regulatory moat to make competition illegal. Everything they do is based on "the law applies to you, not us." And you're saying that we're entitled for being outraged by this? > 4. What's stopping you from creating what you thought OpenAI should be? Feel free. Nobody stopping you. That's literally what Sam Altman is trying to get congress to do. This will literally be illegal if we don't fight back. This is literally what the poster you're arguing against is saying is happening. How many more "literally"s do I need here!?

by imdsm 3y ago

marstall 3y ago

I think his post is appropriate here, and on point. how about responding to his arguments about algorithm secrecy and the push to regulate competition?

feoren 3y ago

> 2. Have you contributed funds to OpenAI? If not, where did your sense of entitlement come from? Is your argument that we need to have given a company money before we can be opposed to their unethical business practices? We're talking about a company that wantonly disregarded copyright, broke the DMCA billions of times (proving that law is for completely destroying individuals who want to personally enjoy some media they probably otherwise wouldn't buy, not for corporations who want to hoard the wealth collectively made by all of society), charges its users even when its product is not delivered due to their own server errors, and then goes in front of congress to try to put up a regulatory moat to make competition illegal. Everything they do is based on "the law applies to you, not us." And you're saying that we're entitled for being outraged by this? > 4. What's stopping you from creating what you thought OpenAI should be? Feel free. Nobody stopping you. That's literally what Sam Altman is trying to get congress to do. This will literally be illegal if we don't fight back. This is literally what the poster you're arguing against is saying is happening. How many more "literally"s do I need here!?