12 ms·

He was always sketchy, and the whole way he handles OpenAI is also extremely sketchy with pushing for regulation that in effect protects OpenAI's products again

He was always sketchy, and the whole way he handles OpenAI is also extremely sketchy with pushing for regulation that in effect protects OpenAI's products against competition and forms a soft-to-hard government monopoly on AI (the exact opposite of OpenAI's initial mission). And yet, they did bring us GPT, and inspired the world to go in this direction, including the open-source models by Meta. History is always messy like this. And another proof of this will be if this tech becomes the beginning of the end of our civilization, but that's just me thinking out loud here.

Legend2440 3y ago
Artificial fertilizer (which feeds billions of people worldwide) was invented by the same guy who ran the German chemical weapons program in WWI.
reaperducer 3y ago
the whole way he handles OpenAI is also extremely sketchy with pushing for regulation that in effect protects OpenAI's products against competition and forms a soft-to-hard government monopoly on AI To me, that's the least sketchy part of OpenAI. The part that gets me is where one day it's promoted as the future, and will be integrated into every part of our lives. And the very next day, the same guy is telling newspapers that AI is so scary and potentially destructive that it absolutely must be regulated by governments. It's like being so proud of continually building new and improved nuclear bombs, and then telling the government that it better build a bunch of nuclear bomb shelters for everyone.
__loam 3y ago
> including the open-source models by Meta "open-source"
- Raed667 3y ago
  Infinitely more open than the ones from "Open"-Ai
  - capableweb 3y ago
    I don't think Open Source is a gradient, it's a boolean. Either something is Open Source or it's not. Neither Llama nor OpenAI is Open Source.
    - Terr_ 3y ago
      I disagree, it's functionally a gradient because the label encompasses different assumptions when different people say it. (It's even more vague than the US' "freedom of speech", since it lacks a bunch of case-law precedent.) You're saying clear-cut objective lines exist--where exactly do you believe they are placed?
      - capableweb 3y ago
        Not saying this is the "objective truth", but the OSD does a good job of helping you find a clear-cut line when something is "Open Source" (in common parlor) or not: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ Again, not everyone agrees with those of course, and I guess that's fine. But I think most software developers who are in the FOSS ecosystem could agree that Llama is not "Open Source" as most people understand the term.
- l33t233372 3y ago
  Freely readable and mutable weights doesn’t have the same ring to it.
  - classified 3y ago
    God forbid we could be accurate with the terms we use.
  - ronsor 3y ago
    "Open access"?

Legend2440 3y ago

Artificial fertilizer (which feeds billions of people worldwide) was invented by the same guy who ran the German chemical weapons program in WWI.

reaperducer 3y ago

the whole way he handles OpenAI is also extremely sketchy with pushing for regulation that in effect protects OpenAI's products against competition and forms a soft-to-hard government monopoly on AI To me, that's the least sketchy part of OpenAI. The part that gets me is where one day it's promoted as the future, and will be integrated into every part of our lives. And the very next day, the same guy is telling newspapers that AI is so scary and potentially destructive that it absolutely must be regulated by governments. It's like being so proud of continually building new and improved nuclear bombs, and then telling the government that it better build a bunch of nuclear bomb shelters for everyone.

__loam 3y ago

> including the open-source models by Meta "open-source"

Raed667 3y ago
Infinitely more open than the ones from "Open"-Ai
- capableweb 3y ago
  I don't think Open Source is a gradient, it's a boolean. Either something is Open Source or it's not. Neither Llama nor OpenAI is Open Source.
  - Terr_ 3y ago
    I disagree, it's functionally a gradient because the label encompasses different assumptions when different people say it. (It's even more vague than the US' "freedom of speech", since it lacks a bunch of case-law precedent.) You're saying clear-cut objective lines exist--where exactly do you believe they are placed?
    - capableweb 3y ago
      Not saying this is the "objective truth", but the OSD does a good job of helping you find a clear-cut line when something is "Open Source" (in common parlor) or not: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ Again, not everyone agrees with those of course, and I guess that's fine. But I think most software developers who are in the FOSS ecosystem could agree that Llama is not "Open Source" as most people understand the term.
l33t233372 3y ago
Freely readable and mutable weights doesn’t have the same ring to it.
- classified 3y ago
  God forbid we could be accurate with the terms we use.
- ronsor 3y ago
  "Open access"?