9 ms·
When others create text to video systems (eg. Lumiere from Google) they publish the research (eg. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.12945.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/240
by gerash 3y ago
When others create text to video systems (eg. Lumiere from Google) they publish the research (eg. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.12945.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.12945.pdf). Open AI is all about commercialization. I don't like their attitude
- y_gy 3y agoIronic, isn't it! OpenAI started out "open," publishing research, and now "ClosedAI" would be a much better name.
- ionwake 3y agoTBH they should just rename to ClosedAI and run with it, I and others would appreciate the honesty plus it would be amusing.
- polygamous_bat 3y agoHowever if you are playing for the regulatory capture route (which Sam Altman seems to be angling for) it’s much easier if your name is “OpenAI”.
- efrank3 3y agogottem
- ShamelessC 3y agoSick burn!
- mtillman 3y agoOAI requires a real mobile phone number to signup and are therefore an adtech company.
- BadHumans 3y agoMight be one of the most absurd things said on here. Requiring a phone number for sign up does not automatically mean you are selling ads.
- polygamous_bat 3y agoWhen the time for making money comes, if you don’t think OpenAI will sell every drop of information they have on you, then you are incredibly naive. Why would they leave money on the table when everyone else has been doing it for forever without any adverse effects?
- jstummbillig 3y agoIf Google Workspace was selling my or any customers information, at all or "forever", it would not be called Google Workspace, it would be called Google We-died-in-the-most-expensive-lawsuit-of-all-time.
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 3y agoThere's a difference. Open AI essentially has 2 products. The chat bot $20 a month thing for Joe shmoe which they admit to training on your prompts, and the API for businesses. Workspace is like the latter. The former is closer to Google search.
- jstummbillig 3y agoSure, but there is no ambiguity about that, is there? You know that, because they tell you (and, sure, maybe they only tell you, because they have to, by law – but they do and you know) How do we get from there to "just assume every company in the world will sell your data in wildly and obviously illegal ways", I don't know.
- jstummbillig 3y agoNot to be overly cute, but if the cutting edge research you do is maybe changing the world fundamentally, forever, guarding that tech should be really, really, really far up your list of priorities and everyone else should be really happy about your priorities. And that should probably take precedence over the semantics of your moniker, every single time (even if hn continues to be super sour about it)
- cloogshicer 3y agoI'd much rather this tech be open - better for everyone to have it than a select few. The more powerful, the more important it is that everyone has access.
- crazygringo 3y agoDo you feel the same way about nuclear weapons tech? That "the more powerful, the more important it is that everyone has access"? Especially considering that the biggest killer app for AI could very well be smart weapons like we've never seen before.
- spdustin 3y agoI feel this is a false equivalence. Nukes aren’t even close to being commodities, cannot be targeted at a class of people (or a single person), and have a minutely small number of users. (Don’t argue semantics with “class of people” when you know what I mean, btw) On the other hand, tech like this can easily become as common as photoshop, can cause harm to a class of people, and be deployed on a whim by an untrained army of malevolent individuals or groups.
- nearbuy 3y agoSo if someone discovered a weapon of mass destruction (say some kind of supervirus) that could be produced and bought cheaply and could be programmed to only kill a certain class of people, then you'd want the recipe to be freely available?
- disillusioned 3y agoMore like ClosedAI, amirite?
- comex 3y agoGoogle is hardly a good actor here. They just announced Gemini 1.5 along with a "technical report" [1] whose entire description of the model architecture is: "Gemini 1.5 Pro is a sparse mixture-of-expert (MoE) Transformer-based model". Followed by a list of papers that it "builds on", followed by a definition of MoE. I suppose that's more than OpenAI gave in their GPT-4 technical report. But not by much! [1] https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/gemini/gemini_v1_5_report.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/gemini/gemini_...
- cubefox 3y agoThe report and the previous one for 1.0 definitely contain much more information than the GPT-4 whitepaper. And Google regularly publishes technical details on other models, like Lumiere, things that OpenAI stopped doing after their InstructGPT paper.
- cchance 3y agoMaybe because GPT3.5 is closer to what Gemini 1.0 was... GPT4 and Gemini 1.5 are similarly sparse in their "how we did it and what we used" when it comes to papers
- neya 3y agoWhen has OpenAI - for a company named "Open" AI ever released any of their stuff into anything open?
- hnben 3y agoThey stopped releasing their stuff openly around the time GPT3 came to be.
- sebzim4500 3y agoWhisper was after GPT3 and that was fully open.
- sebzim4500 3y agoThey actually did a few years ago, but that's ancient history in AI terms. The most recent thing they released was Whisper, which to be fair is the only model with absolutely no safety implications.
- ambrose2 3y agoFrom what I remember reading, Open was never supposed to be like open source with the internals freely available, but Open as in available for the public to use, as opposed to a technology only for the company to wield and create content with.