5 ms·

I'm sorry- perhaps the intention and wording of the article changes towards the end, but this entire thing as far as I've managed is just a thinly veiled propag

I'm sorry- perhaps the intention and wording of the article changes towards the end, but this entire thing as far as I've managed is just a thinly veiled propaganda piece that tries to make OpenAI, the team, and their product out to be some kind of equivalent to a modern day messiah. For me, and everybody I've seen or recently discussed it with, the whole ChatGPT craze has largely died out, and all we're left with is the technology as it actually exists without the hype, which turns out to be less useful than it was built up to be. I'm not sure I can fully articulate just how entirely biased this article came across from my point of view, but I can say that reading line after line of pointless fluff nearly made me want to throw up. The only thing I'm left wondering how much they were payed to write this piece of utterly atrocious propaganda?

stale2002 3y ago
> I've managed to make it is just a thinly veiled propaganda piece that tries to make OpenAI, the team, and their product out to be some kind of equivalent to a modern day messiah I don't agree at all. The article itself is giving a pretty neutral overview of the company and what the company believe to be the case, for sure. It is OpenAI who thinks that skynet is going to be created, and that they need to be the gatekeepers in charge of it. But, for all the people who are not in a literal cult, it is very useful to know that this is what they believe. It is important to know this, because it gives significant insight as to what they are going to do in the future. That being that they are going to lobby congress to destroy the open source AI movement that is currently on track to destroy OpenAIs mote. And they want to do this all because of some nonsense about skynet. I can understand why this might come off as bias. But I really recommend that you reread the article, but come at it from the perspective of "The writer is describing what the people at OpenAI believe, not what the author believes". Because if you do that, you will quickly understand how the depth of the problem that we have here, which people who are basically in a psuedo cult are in positions of power at significant tech companies and are lobbying congress to stop everyone else from competing against them. You shouldn't read this and think that the author is biased. Instead you should come out of reading this article horrified at the nonsense that major people at major tech companies actually believe, and the fact that they are doing something about it. (IE lobby congress in this case and attempting to destroy the open source AI movement)
- methodical 3y ago
  > "The Beatles set off colossal waves of cultural change, but they anchored their revolution for only so long: Six years after chiming that unforgettable chord they weren’t even a band anymore. The maelstrom OpenAI has unleashed will almost certainly be far bigger." There is no way I can interpret a comparison to the Beatles with the added statement that the Beatles cultural impact will likely be much smaller as anything less than an absolutely massive overstatement based entirely out of some internal bias. If the author was intending this to be written from the perspective of how they think of themselves then in my opinion they have failed.
  - seanhunter 3y ago
    Also the first chord in "Hard Days Night" is just an F9 chord in C, like you can hear in a billion other places long before the Beatles. I know this is beside the point and is going to sound snobbish, but it's not like the Prometheus chord[1] of Scriabin or the "So What" chord[2] which Bill Evans came up with, or a bunch of other things which are genuinely interesting and novel from a harmonic point of view. The Beatles may have been a major cultural phenomenon, but whatever impact they had it wasn't down to things like that chord. I find it pretty annoying when journalists tend to do this kind of thing to add a bit of colour. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_chord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_chord [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_What_chord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_What_chord
    - NerdiDotOrg 3y ago
      Technically though OpenAI is just using 10 year old tech with some newer training models... is that not the same as old chords, new tunes?
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  If they hadn’t believe what they did, they wouldn’t have built what they did. Google was sitting on gold and had no idea.
- dantyti 3y ago
andrei_says_ 3y ago
I’d like to recommend this interview with Emily Bender and Timnit Gebru, authors of the stochastic parrots paper. Exposing the grift behind openai. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jAHRbFetqII https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jAHRbFetqII
- FiberBundle 3y ago
  How can one actually take anything Emily Bender and Timnit Gebru say seriously?
  - rg111 3y ago
    Gebru always stuck to me as an activist rather than a scientist or an engineer. She has a strong resume but we all know how DEI is nowadays. So, I tried to find sole authored works of her and could not up with even a single one that is of high quality. DEI also makes people share authorship with undeserving people. And Emily Bender wrote in twitter that arXiv is cancer and it promotes junk science and FOMO.
  - andrei_says_ 3y ago
    I don’t know enough about the field to know why I should not take someone seriously. If you listen to the interview, you’ll notice that their criticism of the openai investors and statements make a lot of sense. Could you provide some resources which would help me build a balanced viewpoint?
- astrange 3y ago
  Their research consists of saying things that have been disproven false or always were obviously false and just saying them as if they were stone cold facts.
- Legend2440 3y ago
  Bender and Gebru are crackpots. Gebru in particular is a political activist who believes the true goal of AI is to impose eugenics through genetic engineering and create a white master race.
lucia-wermer 3y ago
[flagged]
- regularjack 3y ago
  How is this relevant to the comment you're replying to?
- mptest 3y ago
  >at the risk of being censored You mean at the risk of sounding like an anti semite???? You are mentally ill if you think that is relevant. Please seek mental help.

stale2002 3y ago

> I've managed to make it is just a thinly veiled propaganda piece that tries to make OpenAI, the team, and their product out to be some kind of equivalent to a modern day messiah I don't agree at all. The article itself is giving a pretty neutral overview of the company and what the company believe to be the case, for sure. It is OpenAI who thinks that skynet is going to be created, and that they need to be the gatekeepers in charge of it. But, for all the people who are not in a literal cult, it is very useful to know that this is what they believe. It is important to know this, because it gives significant insight as to what they are going to do in the future. That being that they are going to lobby congress to destroy the open source AI movement that is currently on track to destroy OpenAIs mote. And they want to do this all because of some nonsense about skynet. I can understand why this might come off as bias. But I really recommend that you reread the article, but come at it from the perspective of "The writer is describing what the people at OpenAI believe, not what the author believes". Because if you do that, you will quickly understand how the depth of the problem that we have here, which people who are basically in a psuedo cult are in positions of power at significant tech companies and are lobbying congress to stop everyone else from competing against them. You shouldn't read this and think that the author is biased. Instead you should come out of reading this article horrified at the nonsense that major people at major tech companies actually believe, and the fact that they are doing something about it. (IE lobby congress in this case and attempting to destroy the open source AI movement)

methodical 3y ago
> "The Beatles set off colossal waves of cultural change, but they anchored their revolution for only so long: Six years after chiming that unforgettable chord they weren’t even a band anymore. The maelstrom OpenAI has unleashed will almost certainly be far bigger." There is no way I can interpret a comparison to the Beatles with the added statement that the Beatles cultural impact will likely be much smaller as anything less than an absolutely massive overstatement based entirely out of some internal bias. If the author was intending this to be written from the perspective of how they think of themselves then in my opinion they have failed.
- seanhunter 3y ago
  Also the first chord in "Hard Days Night" is just an F9 chord in C, like you can hear in a billion other places long before the Beatles. I know this is beside the point and is going to sound snobbish, but it's not like the Prometheus chord[1] of Scriabin or the "So What" chord[2] which Bill Evans came up with, or a bunch of other things which are genuinely interesting and novel from a harmonic point of view. The Beatles may have been a major cultural phenomenon, but whatever impact they had it wasn't down to things like that chord. I find it pretty annoying when journalists tend to do this kind of thing to add a bit of colour. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_chord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_chord [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_What_chord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_What_chord
  - NerdiDotOrg 3y ago
    Technically though OpenAI is just using 10 year old tech with some newer training models... is that not the same as old chords, new tunes?
mensetmanusman 3y ago
If they hadn’t believe what they did, they wouldn’t have built what they did. Google was sitting on gold and had no idea.
dantyti 3y ago

andrei_says_ 3y ago

I’d like to recommend this interview with Emily Bender and Timnit Gebru, authors of the stochastic parrots paper. Exposing the grift behind openai. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jAHRbFetqII https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jAHRbFetqII

FiberBundle 3y ago
How can one actually take anything Emily Bender and Timnit Gebru say seriously?
- rg111 3y ago
  Gebru always stuck to me as an activist rather than a scientist or an engineer. She has a strong resume but we all know how DEI is nowadays. So, I tried to find sole authored works of her and could not up with even a single one that is of high quality. DEI also makes people share authorship with undeserving people. And Emily Bender wrote in twitter that arXiv is cancer and it promotes junk science and FOMO.
- andrei_says_ 3y ago
  I don’t know enough about the field to know why I should not take someone seriously. If you listen to the interview, you’ll notice that their criticism of the openai investors and statements make a lot of sense. Could you provide some resources which would help me build a balanced viewpoint?
astrange 3y ago
Their research consists of saying things that have been disproven false or always were obviously false and just saying them as if they were stone cold facts.
Legend2440 3y ago
Bender and Gebru are crackpots. Gebru in particular is a political activist who believes the true goal of AI is to impose eugenics through genetic engineering and create a white master race.

lucia-wermer 3y ago

[flagged]

regularjack 3y ago
How is this relevant to the comment you're replying to?
mptest 3y ago
>at the risk of being censored You mean at the risk of sounding like an anti semite???? You are mentally ill if you think that is relevant. Please seek mental help.