4 ms·

What is the problem with what they are doing?

• seeknotfind 3y ago
  By regulating AI or associating legal process with the development of AI, there is a real cost that may exceed or distract from the underlying lower technical cost. People could no longer work on AI for fun, you see. Big companies won't be hindered by this because they can pay the cost, but open source developers wanting to play by the rules would be unable to continue in many cases. If you have read the famous "we have no moat and neither does openai" piece, this regulation would be creating that moat to protect large companies. I take a similar view of what Sam Altman requested from the US (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/technology/openai-altman-artificial-intelligence-regulation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/technology/openai-altman-...). This situation is like cryptography in the early web. Some governments shut it down for domestic use and inadvertantly enabled weakness in their own infrastructure. Will governments hinder the development of AI in the same way?
  • whelp_24 3y ago
    Sorry, I meant, what is the problem with what the open source advocates in the article. The comment i replied to seemed to say open source is worthless. I am no fan of OpenAI and it's closed nature.
• jtode 3y ago
  To save you time engaging with a zealot, I am a Free Software zealot; I consider the entirety of "Open Source" to be a delusion of capital, whereby they can adopt the methods and reap the benefits of Free Software while disregarding the underlying ethics that gave it birth, and therefore, end up with a corrupt verbal chimera that means whatever the capital wants it to mean. Let them defend Open Source all they like, I could give a shit. I'll be over here defending Free Software. [edit: ...which actually means something.]