3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoAlso 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 agoTechnically 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 agoIf 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 agoFirst of all, I just want to say that I've found your comment insightful, especially this part: > 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. But, I do not agree that the writer (and Wired) should not be held accountable for publishing something that is essentially an overly sympathetic and uncritical ad for the company. This is what made it mostly unreadable for me. I guess knowing that these types of fluff pieces were written about so many grifters and cult-like startup gurus [0] leaves me wishing for a more critical view. For example, I believe the writer could have described how these cult members view themselves just as well WHILE justifiably questioning the narrative and expressing concern about how it relates to being a for-profit-non-profit, open source LLMs, concentration of information, capital and power, the homogenizing and enshitifying effects their tools might have on society, etc. > 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) Agree. 0 – https://www.wired.co.uk/article/we-work-startup-valuation-adam-neumann-interview https://www.wired.co.uk/article/we-work-startup-valuation-ad...
- confd 3y agoI feel you. The sense of neutrality in this article is what I would expect from a well-written PR piece.