4 ms·
> As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in OpenAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI afte
by LatticeAnimal 3y ago
> As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in OpenAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes).
That is surprisingly greedy & selfish to be boasting about in their own blog.
- Jensson 3y agoYeah, they are basically saying that they called themselves OpenAI as a recruitment strategy but they never planned to be open after the initial hires.
- Aeolun 3y agoThey’re pretty open about that now though.
- Spivak 3y agoWhy do tech people keep falling for this shtick? It's happened over and over and over with open source becoming open core becoming source available being becoming source available with closed source bits. How society organizes property rights makes it damn near impossible to make anything commons in a way that can't in practice be reversed when folks see dollar signs. Owner is a non nullable field.
- blackoil 3y agoBy believing that since they aren't "MBA", economics and human behaviour don't apply to them.
- sva_ 3y agoBecause the people that got recruited on those terms suddenly see what kind of dough they will be making, I suppose.
- 8organicbits 3y agoThankfully the code as it was during the open source stage can be forked, maintained, and developed further if another party is interested.
- gyudin 3y agoSounds pretty much like any other corpo “Pay us bucks and benefit from our tech”
- davej 3y agoI think you're misreading the intention here. The intention of closing it up as they approach AGI is to protect against dangerous applications of the technology. That is how I read it anyway and I don't see a reason to interpret it in a nefarious way.
- sillysaurusx 3y ago"Tools for me, but not for thee."
- edanm 3y agoWhen the tools are (believed to be) more dangerous than nuclear weapons, and the "thee" is potentially irresponsible and/or antagonists, then... yes? This is a valid (and moral) position.
- sillysaurusx 3y agoIf so, then they shouldn’t have started down that path by refusing to open source 1.5B for a long time while citing safety concerns. It’s obvious that it never posed any kind of threat, and to date no language model has. None have even been close to threatening. The comparison to nuclear weapons has always been mistaken.
- edanm 3y agoOh I'm talking about the ideal, not what they're actually doing.
- sillysaurusx 3y agoSadly one can’t be separated from the other. I’d agree if it was true. But there’s no evidence it ever has been. One thought experiment is to imagine someone developing software with a promise to open source the benign parts, then withholding most of it for business reasons while citing aliens as a concern.