8 ms·

> they don't refute that they did betray it They do. They say: > Elon understood the mission did not imply open-sourcing AGI. As Ilya told Elon: “As we get cl

> they don't refute that they did betray it They do. They say: > Elon understood the mission did not imply open-sourcing AGI. As Ilya told Elon: “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...” Whether you agree with this is a different matter but they do state that they did not betray their mission in their eyes.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Jensson 3y ago
What they said there isn't their mission, that is their hidden agenda. Here is their real mission that they launched with, they completely betrayed this: > As a non-profit, our aim is to build value for everyone rather than shareholders. Researchers will be strongly encouraged to publish their work, whether as papers, blog posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with the world https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai
- boringg 3y ago
  “Dont be evil” ring any bells?
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Google is a for-profit, they never took donations with the goal of helping humanity.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - otterley 3y ago
      "Don't be evil" was codified into the S-1 document Google submitted to the SEC as part of their IPO: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504073639/ds1.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504... """ DON’T BE EVIL Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served—as shareholders and in all other ways—by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company. Google users trust our systems to help them with important decisions: medical, financial and many others. Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, and we do not accept payment for them or for inclusion or more frequent updating. We also display advertising, which we work hard to make relevant, and we label it clearly. This is similar to a newspaper, where the advertisements are clear and the articles are not influenced by the advertisers’ payments. We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see. """
      - Jensson 3y ago
        Yes, there they explain why doing evil will hurt their profits. But a for profits main mission is always money, the mission statement just explains how they make money. That is very different from a non-profit whose whole existence has to be described in such a statement, since they aren't about profits.
      - pclmulqdq 3y ago
        Nothing in an S-1 is "codified" for an organization. Something in the corporate bylaws is a different story.
    - richrichie 3y ago
      They started as a defence contractor with generous “donation” from DARPA. That’s why i never trusted them from day 0. And they have followed a pretty predictable trajectory.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
andsoitis 3y ago
> everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science... everyone... except scientists and the scientific community.
- bbor 3y ago
  Well, the Manhattan project springs to mind. They truly thought they were laboring for the public good, and even if the government let them wouldn’t have wanted to publish their progress. Personally I find the comparison of this whole saga (deepmind -> google —> openai —> anthropic —-> mistral —-> ?) to the Manhattan project very enlightening, both of this project and our society. Instead of a centralized government project, we have a loosely organized mad dash of global multinationals for research talent, all of which claim the exact same “they’ll do it first!” motivations as always. And of course it’s accompanied by all sorts of media rhetoric and posturing through memes, 60-Minutes interviews, and (apparently) gossipy slap back blog posts. In this scenario, Oppenheimer is clearly Hinton, who’s deep into his act III. That would mean that the real Manhattan project of AI took place in roughly 2018-2022 rather than now, which I think also makes sense; ChatGPT was the surprise breakthrough (A-bomb), and now they’re just polishing that into the more effective fully-realized forms of the technology (H-bomb, ICBMs).
  - boringuser2 3y ago
    They literally created weapons of mass destruction. Do you think they thought they were good guys because you watched a Hollywood movie?
    - Judgmentality 3y ago
      If you really think you're fighting evil in a war for global domination, it's easy to justify to yourself that it's important you have the weapons before they do. Even if you don't think you're fighting evil; you'd still want to develop the weapons before your enemies so it won't be used against you and threaten your way of life. I'm not taking a stance here, but it's easy to see why many Americans believed developing the atomic bomb was a net positive at least for Americans, and depending on how you interpret it even the world.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
The benefit is the science, nothing else matters, and having OpenAI decide what matters for everyone is repugnant. Of course they can give us nothing, but in that case they should start paying taxes and stop claiming they're a public benefit org. My prediction is they'll produce little of value going forward. They're too distracted by their wet dreams about all the cash they're going to make to focus on the job at hand.
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
  I agree with your sentiment but the prediction is very silly. Basically every time openai releases something they beat the state of the art in that area by a large margin.
  - jakupovic 3y ago
    We have a saying: There is always someone smarter than you. There is always someone stronger than you. There is always someone richer than you. There is always someon X than Y. This is applicable to anything, just because OpenAI has a lead now it doesn't mean they will stay X for long rather than Y.
- sumedh 3y ago
  > The benefit is the science, nothing else matters Even if that science helps not so friendly countries like Russia?
  - ginko 3y ago
    Governments WILL use this. There really isn't any real way to keep their hands off technology like this. Same with big corporations. It's the regular people that will be left out.
  - jajko 3y ago
    OpenAI at this point must be literally #1 target for every single big spying agency in whole world. As we saw previously it doesn't matter much if you are top notch ai researcher, if 1-2 millions of your potential personal wealth are in stake this affect decision making (and probably would mine too). How much of a bribe would it take for anybody inside with good enough access to switch sides and take all the golden eggs out? 100 million? A billion? Trivial amounts compared to what we discuss. And they will race each other to your open arms for such amounts. We see sometimes recently ie government officials betraying their own countries to russian spies in Europe for few hundred - few thousands of euros. A lot of people are in some way selfish by nature, or can be manipulated easily via emotions. Secret services across the board are experts in that, it just works(tm). To sum it up - I don't think it can be protected long term.
shrimpx 3y ago
“The Open in openAI means that [insert generic mission statement that applies to every business on the planet].”
CuriouslyC 3y ago
So, open as in "we'll sell to anyone" except that at first they didn't want to sell to the military and they still don't sell to people deemed "terrorists." Riiiiiight. Pure bullshit. Open could mean the science, the code/ip (which includes the science) or pure marketing drivel. Sadly it seems that it's the latter.
usefulcat 3y ago
So.. "open" means "open at first, then not so much or not at all as we get closer to achieving AGI"? As they become more successful, they (obviously) have a lot of motivation to not be "open" at all, and that's without even considering the so-called ethical arguments. More generally, putting "open" in any name frequently ends up as a cheap marketing gimmick. If you end up going nowhere it doesn't matter, and if you're wildly successful (ahem) then it also won't matter whether or not you're de facto 'open' because success. Maybe someone should start a betting pool on when (not if) they'll change their name.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- johnbellone 3y ago
  OpenAI by Microsoft?
- addicted 3y ago
  OpenAI is literally not a word in the dictionary. It’s a made up word. So the Open in OpenAI means whatever OpenAI wants it to mean. It’s a trademarked word. The fact that Elon is suing them for their name when the guy has a feature “AutoPilot” which is not a made up word and had an actual well understood meaning which totally does not apply to how Tesla uses AutoPilot is hilarious.
  - ozgung 3y ago
    Actually Open[Technology] pattern implies a meaning in this context. OpenGL, OpenCV, OpenCL etc. are all 'open' implementations of a core technology, maintained by non-profit organizations. So OpenAI non-profit immediately implies a non-profit for researching, building and sharing 'open' AI technologies. Their earlier communication and releases supported that idea. Apparently, their internal definition was different from the very beginning (2016). The only problem with their (Ilya's) definition of 'open' is that it is not very open. "Everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI". How is this different than the mission of any other commercial AI lab? If OpenAI makes the science closed but only their products open, then 'open' is just a term they use to define their target market. A better definition of OpenAi's 'open' is that they are not a secret research lab. They act as a secret research lab, but out in the open.
smallnamespace 3y ago
Ilya may have said this to Elon but the public messaging of OpenAI certainly did not paint that picture. I happen to think that open sourcing frontier models is a bad idea but OpenAI put themselves in the position where people thought they stood for one thing and then did something quite different. Even if you think such a move is ultimately justified, people are not usually going to trust organizations that are willing to strategically mislead.
mikkom 3y ago
They are totally closed now, not just keeping their models for themselves for profit purposes. They also don't disclose how their new models work at all. They really need to change their name and another entity that actually works for open AI should be set up.
- carlossouza 3y ago
  Their name is as brilliant as “The Democratic People's Republic of Korea” (AKA North Korea)
thinkingemote 3y ago
In that case they mean that their mission to ensure everyone benefits from AI has changed to be that only a few would benefit. But it would support them saying like "it was never about open data" In a way this could be more closed than for profit.
lewhoo 3y ago
> but it's totally OK to not share the science... That passes for an explanation to you ? What exactly is the difference between openai and any company with a product then ? Hey, we made THIS and in order to make sure everyone can benefit we sell at a price of X.
SeanLuke 3y ago
This claim is nonsense, as any visit to the Wayback Machine can attest. In 2016, OpenAI's website said this right up front: > We're hoping to grow OpenAI into such an institution. As a non-profit, our aim is to build value for everyone rather than shareholders. Researchers will be strongly encouraged to publish their work, whether as papers, blog posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with the world. We'll freely collaborate with others across many institutions and expect to work with companies to research and deploy new technologies. I don't know how this quote can possibly be squared with a claim that they "did not imply open-sourcing AGI".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
KoolKat23 3y ago
The serfs benefitted from the use of the landlord's tools. This would mean it is fundamentally just a business with extra steps. At the very least, the "foundation" should be paying tax then.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Jensson 3y ago

What they said there isn't their mission, that is their hidden agenda. Here is their real mission that they launched with, they completely betrayed this: > As a non-profit, our aim is to build value for everyone rather than shareholders. Researchers will be strongly encouraged to publish their work, whether as papers, blog posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with the world https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai

boringg 3y ago
“Dont be evil” ring any bells?
- Jensson 3y ago
  Google is a for-profit, they never took donations with the goal of helping humanity.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - otterley 3y ago
    "Don't be evil" was codified into the S-1 document Google submitted to the SEC as part of their IPO: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504073639/ds1.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504... """ DON’T BE EVIL Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served—as shareholders and in all other ways—by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company. Google users trust our systems to help them with important decisions: medical, financial and many others. Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, and we do not accept payment for them or for inclusion or more frequent updating. We also display advertising, which we work hard to make relevant, and we label it clearly. This is similar to a newspaper, where the advertisements are clear and the articles are not influenced by the advertisers’ payments. We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see. """
    - Jensson 3y ago
      Yes, there they explain why doing evil will hurt their profits. But a for profits main mission is always money, the mission statement just explains how they make money. That is very different from a non-profit whose whole existence has to be described in such a statement, since they aren't about profits.
    - pclmulqdq 3y ago
      Nothing in an S-1 is "codified" for an organization. Something in the corporate bylaws is a different story.
  - richrichie 3y ago
    They started as a defence contractor with generous “donation” from DARPA. That’s why i never trusted them from day 0. And they have followed a pretty predictable trajectory.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

andsoitis 3y ago

> everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science... everyone... except scientists and the scientific community.

bbor 3y ago
Well, the Manhattan project springs to mind. They truly thought they were laboring for the public good, and even if the government let them wouldn’t have wanted to publish their progress. Personally I find the comparison of this whole saga (deepmind -> google —> openai —> anthropic —-> mistral —-> ?) to the Manhattan project very enlightening, both of this project and our society. Instead of a centralized government project, we have a loosely organized mad dash of global multinationals for research talent, all of which claim the exact same “they’ll do it first!” motivations as always. And of course it’s accompanied by all sorts of media rhetoric and posturing through memes, 60-Minutes interviews, and (apparently) gossipy slap back blog posts. In this scenario, Oppenheimer is clearly Hinton, who’s deep into his act III. That would mean that the real Manhattan project of AI took place in roughly 2018-2022 rather than now, which I think also makes sense; ChatGPT was the surprise breakthrough (A-bomb), and now they’re just polishing that into the more effective fully-realized forms of the technology (H-bomb, ICBMs).
- boringuser2 3y ago
  They literally created weapons of mass destruction. Do you think they thought they were good guys because you watched a Hollywood movie?
  - Judgmentality 3y ago
    If you really think you're fighting evil in a war for global domination, it's easy to justify to yourself that it's important you have the weapons before they do. Even if you don't think you're fighting evil; you'd still want to develop the weapons before your enemies so it won't be used against you and threaten your way of life. I'm not taking a stance here, but it's easy to see why many Americans believed developing the atomic bomb was a net positive at least for Americans, and depending on how you interpret it even the world.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

The benefit is the science, nothing else matters, and having OpenAI decide what matters for everyone is repugnant. Of course they can give us nothing, but in that case they should start paying taxes and stop claiming they're a public benefit org. My prediction is they'll produce little of value going forward. They're too distracted by their wet dreams about all the cash they're going to make to focus on the job at hand.

BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
I agree with your sentiment but the prediction is very silly. Basically every time openai releases something they beat the state of the art in that area by a large margin.
- jakupovic 3y ago
  We have a saying: There is always someone smarter than you. There is always someone stronger than you. There is always someone richer than you. There is always someon X than Y. This is applicable to anything, just because OpenAI has a lead now it doesn't mean they will stay X for long rather than Y.
sumedh 3y ago
> The benefit is the science, nothing else matters Even if that science helps not so friendly countries like Russia?
- ginko 3y ago
  Governments WILL use this. There really isn't any real way to keep their hands off technology like this. Same with big corporations. It's the regular people that will be left out.
- jajko 3y ago
  OpenAI at this point must be literally #1 target for every single big spying agency in whole world. As we saw previously it doesn't matter much if you are top notch ai researcher, if 1-2 millions of your potential personal wealth are in stake this affect decision making (and probably would mine too). How much of a bribe would it take for anybody inside with good enough access to switch sides and take all the golden eggs out? 100 million? A billion? Trivial amounts compared to what we discuss. And they will race each other to your open arms for such amounts. We see sometimes recently ie government officials betraying their own countries to russian spies in Europe for few hundred - few thousands of euros. A lot of people are in some way selfish by nature, or can be manipulated easily via emotions. Secret services across the board are experts in that, it just works(tm). To sum it up - I don't think it can be protected long term.

shrimpx 3y ago

“The Open in openAI means that [insert generic mission statement that applies to every business on the planet].”

CuriouslyC 3y ago

So, open as in "we'll sell to anyone" except that at first they didn't want to sell to the military and they still don't sell to people deemed "terrorists." Riiiiiight. Pure bullshit. Open could mean the science, the code/ip (which includes the science) or pure marketing drivel. Sadly it seems that it's the latter.

usefulcat 3y ago

So.. "open" means "open at first, then not so much or not at all as we get closer to achieving AGI"? As they become more successful, they (obviously) have a lot of motivation to not be "open" at all, and that's without even considering the so-called ethical arguments. More generally, putting "open" in any name frequently ends up as a cheap marketing gimmick. If you end up going nowhere it doesn't matter, and if you're wildly successful (ahem) then it also won't matter whether or not you're de facto 'open' because success. Maybe someone should start a betting pool on when (not if) they'll change their name.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
johnbellone 3y ago
OpenAI by Microsoft?
addicted 3y ago
OpenAI is literally not a word in the dictionary. It’s a made up word. So the Open in OpenAI means whatever OpenAI wants it to mean. It’s a trademarked word. The fact that Elon is suing them for their name when the guy has a feature “AutoPilot” which is not a made up word and had an actual well understood meaning which totally does not apply to how Tesla uses AutoPilot is hilarious.
- ozgung 3y ago
  Actually Open[Technology] pattern implies a meaning in this context. OpenGL, OpenCV, OpenCL etc. are all 'open' implementations of a core technology, maintained by non-profit organizations. So OpenAI non-profit immediately implies a non-profit for researching, building and sharing 'open' AI technologies. Their earlier communication and releases supported that idea. Apparently, their internal definition was different from the very beginning (2016). The only problem with their (Ilya's) definition of 'open' is that it is not very open. "Everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI". How is this different than the mission of any other commercial AI lab? If OpenAI makes the science closed but only their products open, then 'open' is just a term they use to define their target market. A better definition of OpenAi's 'open' is that they are not a secret research lab. They act as a secret research lab, but out in the open.

smallnamespace 3y ago

Ilya may have said this to Elon but the public messaging of OpenAI certainly did not paint that picture. I happen to think that open sourcing frontier models is a bad idea but OpenAI put themselves in the position where people thought they stood for one thing and then did something quite different. Even if you think such a move is ultimately justified, people are not usually going to trust organizations that are willing to strategically mislead.

mikkom 3y ago

They are totally closed now, not just keeping their models for themselves for profit purposes. They also don't disclose how their new models work at all. They really need to change their name and another entity that actually works for open AI should be set up.

carlossouza 3y ago
Their name is as brilliant as “The Democratic People's Republic of Korea” (AKA North Korea)

thinkingemote 3y ago

In that case they mean that their mission to ensure everyone benefits from AI has changed to be that only a few would benefit. But it would support them saying like "it was never about open data" In a way this could be more closed than for profit.

lewhoo 3y ago

> but it's totally OK to not share the science... That passes for an explanation to you ? What exactly is the difference between openai and any company with a product then ? Hey, we made THIS and in order to make sure everyone can benefit we sell at a price of X.

SeanLuke 3y ago

This claim is nonsense, as any visit to the Wayback Machine can attest. In 2016, OpenAI's website said this right up front: > We're hoping to grow OpenAI into such an institution. As a non-profit, our aim is to build value for everyone rather than shareholders. Researchers will be strongly encouraged to publish their work, whether as papers, blog posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with the world. We'll freely collaborate with others across many institutions and expect to work with companies to research and deploy new technologies. I don't know how this quote can possibly be squared with a claim that they "did not imply open-sourcing AGI".

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

KoolKat23 3y ago

The serfs benefitted from the use of the landlord's tools. This would mean it is fundamentally just a business with extra steps. At the very least, the "foundation" should be paying tax then.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]