4 ms·
Like most airing out of drama, this doesn't really materially change anything aside from making everyone involved look extremely bad But also, all entities inv
by advael 3y ago
Like most airing out of drama, this doesn't really materially change anything aside from making everyone involved look extremely bad
But also, all entities involved looked bad already to observers who weren't so deeply rooting for them already that nothing would change their minds, so this is basically tabloid fodder drama in terms of importance as far as I can tell
- gitaarik 3y agoWell, isn't it good that the public learns more about the bad stuff they're doing?
- advael 3y agoYes, transparency is perhaps the most important check against power. We are constantly told by governments and corporations alike that there is some dire safety reason they have to do so much secretly, and while rare exceptions where this may actually be true for some temporary situation do exist (often the case in wars, perhaps, though not decades after the fact as governments so often allege), it's clear that this is often a lie told for the obvious reason that this secrecy allows powerful people to act without this check. We only get told the lie in the first place because this secrecy breaks expectations of transparency; often - as with openAI - breaks promises that were previously made So we have them airing their dirty laundry because a billionaire sued them for his own petty reasons, having planned to break the promises the organization made that he's now suing them over in a similar way. Billionaire is hypocrite, news at eleven. This doesn't exonerate the organization. I hope this suit makes people angry. I hope it makes it harder to get away with this facile and infantilizing line about keeping people in the dark to protect them
- pests 3y agoBad stuff? What bad stuff?
- gitaarik 3y agoWell, you said it made them look bad. Or did you mean that they aren't doing anything bad but are only making it look bad for each other? Edit: sorry, I meant the parent said that. But I guess you understand it now. Edit 2: To be clear, the bad stuff: - OpenAI not really being "open" in any way. - Elon not really caring about that but just wanting to take revenge because they became successful without him.
- pests 3y agoThat's not really "bad stuff" the public would care about IMO, just some internal drama.
- advael 3y agoWell, if "the public" in any way bought into OpenAI's branding claim that they were a non-profit dedicated to making something for the public benefit, they have a right to feel betrayed As someone who was watching the brain drain of AI researchers from academia by tech giants before OpenAI was founded, their ethos and initial actual transparency was somewhat inspiring, and the first move to lock up their new frontier model struck me as disappointing and suspicious, and then actively like a betrayal once it came out that it was an exclusive licensing deal with Microsoft. Maybe members of the public who are less invested in AI research don't feel similarly, but a lot of laypeople seem to suddenly care about AI, including the usual giant swath of techbros that were probably previously working crypto scams becoming really cultish and smug about it, but also non-tech people I know have it on their mind a lot, which is kinda new, and most of these people view it negatively, and almost all of them care because of OpenAI. Frankly your comment makes no sense to me. What are you trying to get at here?
- gitaarik 3y agoFrom all the comments in this threat it seems a lot of people care about it. Of course HN public is specially tech/nerd oriented, but from the popularity here I think it's not crazy to think that non-HN audience would also care.
- 3y ago
- gandutraveler 3y agoAgree. But this showed Elon to be a much worse cry baby.
- advael 3y agoLike I said before this seems par for the course for him