3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoAlso 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 agoNot 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 agoThis 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 agoIt 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.