3 ms·
Here's the thing. I've always been kind of cold on OpeanAI claiming to be "Open" when it was clearly a for profit thing and I was concerned about the increasing
by gustavus 3y ago
Here's the thing. I've always been kind of cold on OpeanAI claiming to be "Open" when it was clearly a for profit thing and I was concerned about the increasing move to the commercialization of AI that Sam was taking.
But I am much more concerned to be honest those who feel they need to control the development of AI to ensure it is "aligns with their principles", after all principles can change, and to quote Lewis "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
What we really need is another Stallman, his idea was first and foremost always freedom, allowing each individual agency to decide their own fate. Every other avenue will always result in men in suits in far away rooms dictating to the rest of the world what their vision of society should be.
- brookst 3y agoBe the change you want to see.
- andy99 3y agoIf the board was really serious about doing good over making profit (if this is indeed what the whole thing is about) they'd open source gpt-4/5 with a gpl-style license
- swatcoder 3y agoThat’s not the sense of open they’ve organized around. In fact, it’s antithetical to it. Theirs is a technocratic sense of open, where select credentialed experts collaborate on a rational good without a concentration of control by specific capitalists or nations.
- piuantiderp 3y agoI think your technocratic sense of open is misplaced. At this point OpenAI is clearly controlled by the US and it's ok. If anything one wonders if Altman's ouster has a geopolitical angle, cozying up to other countries and such.
- cmrdporcupine 3y agoI guess I struggle to see how the word "open" can be applied to that, but I also remember how that word was tossed around in the late 80s and early 90s during the Unix wars, and, yeah, shoe fits. The question is how we got to be so powerless as a society that this is the only palette of choices we get to choose from: technocratic semi-autistic engineer-intellects who want to hoist AGI on the world vs self-obsessed tech bro salesdudes who see themselves as modern day Howard Roarks. That's it. Anyways, don't mind me, gonna crawl into a corner and read Dune.
- naveen99 3y agoYeah, not open in the open source or rms way. it’s “for the benefit for all” with the “benefits” decided by the openai board, a la communism, with central planning by “the party”. Surprisingly capitalism actually leads to more benefits for all, because of the decentralization and competition.
- surrealize 3y agoThis definition is an abuse of the word "open"
- esafak 3y agoI think "don't extinguish humanity or leave most of them unemployed" is a principle everyone can get and stay behind.
- cmrdporcupine 3y agoYou seem to have far more faith in others' ethical compass than I think is justified by historical evidence. It's amazing what people will do when the size of their paycheque (or ego) are tied to it. I don't trust anybody at OpenAI with the keys to the car, but democratic choice apparently doesn't play into it, so here we are.
- esafak 3y agoI meant as a basic principle. Individuals and organizations who breach the pact can be punished by legal means.