4 ms·

> OpenAI is in fact not open Apple is also not an apple

by haunter 3y ago

KeplerBoy 3y ago
Pretty sure Apple never aimed to be an Apple.
- hef19898 3y ago
  They sure sued a lot of apple places over having an apple as logo.
  - _Algernon_ 3y ago
    If having an apple logo makes a company an apple, then Apple is in fact an apple
- sam_lowry_ 3y ago
  But The Apple.
- monoscient 3y ago
  It's actually one of the most spectacular failures in business history, but we don't talk much about it
smt88 3y ago
Apple has no by-laws committing itself to being an apple. This line of argument is facile and destructive to conversation anyway. It boils down to, "Pointing out corporate hypocrisy isn't valuable because corporations are liars," and (worse) it implies the other person is naive. In reality, we can and should be outraged when corporations betray their own statements and supposed values.
- khazhoux 3y ago
  > In reality, we can and should be outraged when corporations betray their own statements and supposed values. There are only three groups of people who could be subject to betrayal here: employees, investors, and customers. Clearly they did not betray employees or investors, since they largely sided with Sam. As for customers, that's harder to gauge -- did people sign up for ChatGPT with the explicit expectation that the research would be "open"? The founding charter said one thing, but the majority of the company and investors went in a different direction. That's not a betrayal, but a pivot.
  - Angostura 3y ago
    I think there’s an additional group to consider- society at large. To an extent the promise of the non- profit was that they would be safe, expert custodians of AI development driven not primarily by the profit motive, but also by safety and societal considerations. Has this larger group been ‘betrayed’? Perhaps
    - biscottigelato 3y ago
      Also donors. They received a ton of donations when they were a pure non-profit from people that got no board seat, no equities, with the believe that they will stick to their mission.
    - Wytwwww 3y ago
      Not unless we believe that OpenAI is somehow "special" and unique and the only company that is capable of building AGI(or whatever).
  - master-lincoln 3y ago
    > Clearly they did not betray employees or investors, since they largely sided with Sam Just because they sided with Altman doesn't necessarily mean they are aligned. There could be a lack of information on the employee/investor side.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    > There are only three groups of people who could be subject to betrayal here GP didn't speak of betraying people; he spoke of betraying their own statements. That just means doing what you said you wouldn't; it doesn't mean anyone was stabbed in the back.
- Wytwwww 3y ago
  > Apple has no by-laws committing itself to being an apple. Does OpenAI have by-laws committing itself to being "open" (as in open source or at least their products freely and universally available)? I thought their goals were the complete opposite of that? Unfortunately, in reality Facebook/Meta seems to be more open than "Open"AI.
  - DebtDeflation 3y ago
    This is spot on. Open was the wrong word to choose for their name, and in the technology space means nearly the opposite of the charter's intention. BeneficialAI would have been more "aligned" with their claimed mission. They have made their position quite clear - the creation of an AGI that is safe and benefits all humanity requires a closed process that limits who can have access to it. I understand their theoretical concerns, but the desire for a "benevolent dictator" goes back to at least Plato and always ends in tears.
- photochemsyn 3y ago
  It does seem that the hypocrisy was baked in from the beginning. In the tech world 'open' implied open source but OpenAI wanted to benefit from a marketing itself as something like Linux when internally it was something like Microsoft. Corporations have no values whatsoever and their statements only mean anything when expressed in terms of a legally binding contract. All corporate value statements should be viewed as nothing more than the kind of self-serving statements that an amoral narcissitic sociopath would make to protect their own interests.
colinsane 3y ago
did the "Open" in OpenAI not originally refer to open in the academic or open source manner? i only learned about OpenAI in the GPT-2 days, when they released it openly and it was still small enough that i ran it on my laptop: i just assumed they had always acted according to their literal name up through that point.
- SuchAnonMuchWow 3y ago
  Except that view point fell even earlier when they refused to release their models after GPT-2.
- Centigonal 3y ago
  This has been a common misinterpretation since very early in OpenAI's history (and a somewhat convenient one for OpenAI). From a 2016 New Yorker article: > Dario Amodei said, "[People in the field] are saying that the goal of OpenAI is to build a friendly A.I. and then release its source code into the world.” > “We don’t plan to release all of our source code,” Altman said. “But let’s please not try to correct that. That usually only makes it worse.” source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-manifest-destiny https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma...
  - olau 3y ago
    I'm not sure this is a correct characterization. Lex Fridman interviewed Elon Musk recently where Musk says that the "open" was supposed to stand for "open source". To be fair, Fridman grilled Musk on his views today, also in the context of xAI, and he was less clear cut there, talking about the problem that there's actually very little source code, it's mostly about the data.
    - cyanydeez 3y ago
      Altman appears to be in the driving seat, so it doesn't matter what other people are saying, the point is "Open" is not being used here to the open source context _but_ they definitely dont try to correct anyone who thinks they're providing open source products.
lynx23 3y ago
Yes!
sangeeth96 3y ago
I got news for you pal: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-battle https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-ba...
Cacti 3y ago
these are the vapid, pedantic hot takes we all come here for. thanks.
rurp 3y ago
Did Apple raise funds and spend a lot of time promoting itself as a giant apple that would feed humanity?

> OpenAI is in fact not open Apple is also not an apple

KeplerBoy 3y ago

Pretty sure Apple never aimed to be an Apple.

hef19898 3y ago
They sure sued a lot of apple places over having an apple as logo.
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  If having an apple logo makes a company an apple, then Apple is in fact an apple
sam_lowry_ 3y ago
But The Apple.
monoscient 3y ago
It's actually one of the most spectacular failures in business history, but we don't talk much about it

smt88 3y ago

Apple has no by-laws committing itself to being an apple. This line of argument is facile and destructive to conversation anyway. It boils down to, "Pointing out corporate hypocrisy isn't valuable because corporations are liars," and (worse) it implies the other person is naive. In reality, we can and should be outraged when corporations betray their own statements and supposed values.

khazhoux 3y ago
> In reality, we can and should be outraged when corporations betray their own statements and supposed values. There are only three groups of people who could be subject to betrayal here: employees, investors, and customers. Clearly they did not betray employees or investors, since they largely sided with Sam. As for customers, that's harder to gauge -- did people sign up for ChatGPT with the explicit expectation that the research would be "open"? The founding charter said one thing, but the majority of the company and investors went in a different direction. That's not a betrayal, but a pivot.
- Angostura 3y ago
  I think there’s an additional group to consider- society at large. To an extent the promise of the non- profit was that they would be safe, expert custodians of AI development driven not primarily by the profit motive, but also by safety and societal considerations. Has this larger group been ‘betrayed’? Perhaps
  - biscottigelato 3y ago
    Also donors. They received a ton of donations when they were a pure non-profit from people that got no board seat, no equities, with the believe that they will stick to their mission.
  - Wytwwww 3y ago
    Not unless we believe that OpenAI is somehow "special" and unique and the only company that is capable of building AGI(or whatever).
- master-lincoln 3y ago
  > Clearly they did not betray employees or investors, since they largely sided with Sam Just because they sided with Altman doesn't necessarily mean they are aligned. There could be a lack of information on the employee/investor side.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > There are only three groups of people who could be subject to betrayal here GP didn't speak of betraying people; he spoke of betraying their own statements. That just means doing what you said you wouldn't; it doesn't mean anyone was stabbed in the back.
Wytwwww 3y ago
> Apple has no by-laws committing itself to being an apple. Does OpenAI have by-laws committing itself to being "open" (as in open source or at least their products freely and universally available)? I thought their goals were the complete opposite of that? Unfortunately, in reality Facebook/Meta seems to be more open than "Open"AI.
- DebtDeflation 3y ago
  This is spot on. Open was the wrong word to choose for their name, and in the technology space means nearly the opposite of the charter's intention. BeneficialAI would have been more "aligned" with their claimed mission. They have made their position quite clear - the creation of an AGI that is safe and benefits all humanity requires a closed process that limits who can have access to it. I understand their theoretical concerns, but the desire for a "benevolent dictator" goes back to at least Plato and always ends in tears.
photochemsyn 3y ago
It does seem that the hypocrisy was baked in from the beginning. In the tech world 'open' implied open source but OpenAI wanted to benefit from a marketing itself as something like Linux when internally it was something like Microsoft. Corporations have no values whatsoever and their statements only mean anything when expressed in terms of a legally binding contract. All corporate value statements should be viewed as nothing more than the kind of self-serving statements that an amoral narcissitic sociopath would make to protect their own interests.

colinsane 3y ago

did the "Open" in OpenAI not originally refer to open in the academic or open source manner? i only learned about OpenAI in the GPT-2 days, when they released it openly and it was still small enough that i ran it on my laptop: i just assumed they had always acted according to their literal name up through that point.

SuchAnonMuchWow 3y ago
Except that view point fell even earlier when they refused to release their models after GPT-2.
Centigonal 3y ago
This has been a common misinterpretation since very early in OpenAI's history (and a somewhat convenient one for OpenAI). From a 2016 New Yorker article: > Dario Amodei said, "[People in the field] are saying that the goal of OpenAI is to build a friendly A.I. and then release its source code into the world.” > “We don’t plan to release all of our source code,” Altman said. “But let’s please not try to correct that. That usually only makes it worse.” source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-manifest-destiny https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma...
- olau 3y ago
  I'm not sure this is a correct characterization. Lex Fridman interviewed Elon Musk recently where Musk says that the "open" was supposed to stand for "open source". To be fair, Fridman grilled Musk on his views today, also in the context of xAI, and he was less clear cut there, talking about the problem that there's actually very little source code, it's mostly about the data.
  - cyanydeez 3y ago
    Altman appears to be in the driving seat, so it doesn't matter what other people are saying, the point is "Open" is not being used here to the open source context _but_ they definitely dont try to correct anyone who thinks they're providing open source products.

lynx23 3y ago

Yes!

sangeeth96 3y ago

I got news for you pal: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-battle https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-ba...

Cacti 3y ago

these are the vapid, pedantic hot takes we all come here for. thanks.

rurp 3y ago

Did Apple raise funds and spend a lot of time promoting itself as a giant apple that would feed humanity?