4 ms·
The article makes a very simplistic analysis, in that because capitalists won in taking over OpenAI, those concerned about a responsible deployment of very powe
by textadventure 3y ago
The article makes a very simplistic analysis, in that because capitalists won in taking over OpenAI, those concerned about a responsible deployment of very powerful technology lost. But in truth, OpenAI was already a capitalist/commercial enterprise and has been for over a year and those concerned had already failed in keeping the beast contained. The cat is out of the bag, and trying to keep ChatGPT in the box wasn't going to do anything in preventing LLMs to continue to proliferate.
Clearly the board should have changed the moment Elon Musk left the company and OpenAI stopped being a non-profit. That's what failed here.
If you are going to accept billions of dollars in funding from Microsoft and you are going to start selling a service, then wake up, it's a capitalist venture.
The time to pull the trigger, was in releasing ChatGPT to the public. Trying to kick out the CEO after Skynet was activated is pretty pointless.
- adrians1 3y ago> But in truth, OpenAI was already a capitalist/commercial enterprise and has been for over a year and those concerned had already failed in keeping the beast contained. The cat is out of the bag, and trying to keep ChatGPT in the box wasn't going to do anything in preventing LLMs to continue to proliferate. Exactly. The author writes as if OpenAI is the only company that does AI, where in fact many companies train AI models, many will do it in the future, and other countries will do it as well. Once LLMs have been invented you can't uninvent them.